m rvt obvious vandalism |
EddieSegoura (talk | contribs) m My Request. BTW, since this is for access to premium features, how much will it cost |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Niz}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Niz}} |
||
---- |
---- |
||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura}} |
|||
---- |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sherurcij}} |
{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sherurcij}} |
||
---- |
---- |
Revision as of 21:44, 22 November 2005
if nominations haven't updated. |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
If you are new to participating in a request for adminship, or are not sure how to gauge the candidate, then kindly go through this mini guide for RfA voters before you participate.
There is an experimental process that you may choose to use to become an administrator instead of this process, called administrator elections. It is approved for one trial run, which will take place in October 2024.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, and deleting pages. However, they are not the final arbiters in content disputes and do not have special powers to decide on content matters, except to enforce the community consensus and the Arbitration Commitee rulings by protecting or deleting pages and applying sanctions to users.
About RfA
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
Asilvering | RfA | Successful | 6 Sep 2024 | 245 | 1 | 0 | >99 |
HouseBlaster | RfA | Successful | 23 Jun 2024 | 153 | 27 | 8 | 85 |
Pickersgill-Cunliffe | RfA | Successful | 15 Jun 2024 | 201 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
Elli | RfA | Successful | 7 Jun 2024 | 207 | 6 | 3 | 97 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
Nomination standards
The only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience).[1] However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. To get an insight of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start an RfA candidate poll.
If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
Nominations
To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
Notice of RfA
Some candidates display the {{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain) en
.
Expressing opinions
All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA. Numerated (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors with an extended confirmed account[2] and only after the RfA has been open for 48 hours.[3] Other comments are welcomed in the general comments section at the bottom of the page, and comments by editors who are not extended confirmed may be moved to this section if mistakenly placed elsewhere.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters".
There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what they would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. Note that bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting or responding to comments (especially to Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like baiting) consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion. Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass.
In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). However, a request for adminship is first and foremost a consensus-building process.[4] In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat.
In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[5] A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason.
If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found at WP:Bureaucrats. If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Monitors
In the 2024 RfA review, the community authorized designated administrators and bureaucrats to act as monitors to moderate discussion at RfA. The monitors can either self-select when an RfA starts, or can be chosen ahead of time by the candidate privately. Monitors may not be involved with the candidate, may not nominate the candidate, may not !vote in the RfA, and may not close the RfA, although if the monitor is a bureaucrat they may participate in the RfA's bureaucrat discussion. In addition to normal moderation tools, monitors may remove !votes from the tally or from the discussion entirely at their discretion when the !vote contains significant policy violations that must be struck or otherwise redacted and provides no rational basis for its position – or when the comment itself is a blockable offense. The text of the !vote can still be struck and/or redacted as normal. Monitors are encouraged to review the RfA regularly. Admins and bureaucrats who are not monitors may still enforce user conduct policies and guidelines at RfA as normal.[6]
Current nominations
Add new requests at the top of this section
Nominations must be accepted by the user in question. If you nominate a user, leave a message on their talk page and ask them to reply here if they accept the nomination.
Please remember to update the vote-tallies in the headers when voting.
Current time is 02:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Purge page cache if nominations haven't updated. |
---
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (57/0/0) ended 06:18 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Harro5 (talk · contribs · count) – I am requesting adminship after my second RFA (this contains a link to the older one as well) which failed due to a small number of votes being cast leading to a majority being overruled by the minority. Anyway, that was four months ago, and as I approach 5000 edits I believe I have proven myself an involved member of the community who, while not letting vandals or otherwise negating editors go unnoticed, fully understands the five pillars of Wikipedia and an admin's role in upholding these. Harro5 03:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Self-nomination. Harro5 03:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support Haven't voted in his other RfAs, but it looks like the objections presented there have been fixed. I don't think he will abuse admin powers, and he seems like a useful contributor. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support main reason for opposition in previous rFa was lack of experience. Certainly worthy of mop now Borisblue 06:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Looks good ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I worked with Harro5 on the George W Bush article and found his contributions there to be excellent.[1]--MONGO 10:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 11:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support for helping where needed in less glamorous admin tasks. - RoyBoy 800 11:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, aye. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 11:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- That made me chuckle:
leading to a majority being overruled by the minority
— what an intro! He has no chance. El_C 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC) - Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support- I think he deserves now. --Bhadani 13:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Great guy, really deserves this in my opinion. Banes 15:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Harro5 has seen more action than many actual admins, and handles conflict with skill and tolerance. Bishonen|talk 17:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Good guy Martin 20:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Looking good.--Sean|Black 20:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sup Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 22:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Well earned. BD2412 T 00:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good luck. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 00:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support seems like mop wielding material to me. Alf melmac 02:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as I ran into him on my RC Patrol. --Gurubrahma 07:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support pgk(talk) 08:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support will be good admin.Gator (talk) 13:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- You must promote him... with a herring! — JIP | Talk 13:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, 2 times out of 3. Grue 13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. And I was going to nominate him... guess now I'm just a Johnny-Come-Lately. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I'm making up for missing RfA voting, I've been doing stuff. Don't yell at me. Fahrenheit Royale 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support on the basis of interaction on Australian articles--A Y Arktos 23:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support has made a valuable contribution especially on Australian articles. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support for all the work he has done on Australian related articles. Roisterer 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support; I'd been wondering when he'd become an admin. Good luck! Deltabeignet 02:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. As the lone neutral last time, I wholeheartedly support this time. -- JamesTeterenko 06:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Rogerd 06:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Commonly pops up on my Australian watchlist with good edits. I followed his Request for Comment and it was handled well. Cnwb 09:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support without hesitation. Hall Monitor 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Article work looks good. Dlyons493 Talk 22:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --tomf688{talk} 03:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 04:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Alot of things can change in four months, eh? – ClockworkSoul 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support because "I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button" is a wonderful line, and because I've encountered him so often on RC patrol. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 10:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Geogre 12:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (who has nothing to add, for once)
- Support Persistence is a good trait for an admin. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Kefalonia 18:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Happy to support this fine Aussie editor. Cheers!! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support dedicated to keeping the wiki vandal free, must be mopped. Alf melmac 11:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 19:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Troppus noelip emertxe. Radiant_>|< 19:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Definite support. +sj + 06:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support he took our criticism of his last 2 RFAs in stride, and has shown a marked improvement since then. I think he's ready now. ALKIVAR™ 07:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. His cool and courteous handling of previous constructive criticism makes me wish some current administrators were more like him. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cliché support. --Deathphoenix 13:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support No longer does it stand at 50. Derktar 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
- Support. -- DS1953 18:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Jobe6 19:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- I'm a little late to the party :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Sorry I'm so late" support. NSLE (讨论+extra) 08:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Sarah Ewart 11:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- which failed due to a small number of votes being cast leading to a majority being overruled by the minority- can you please clarify your understanding of "cosensus", Harro5? Borisblue 05:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought that was an iffy choice of words. The RFA saw 11 support votes to 4 oppose votes and 1 neutral, which shows about 70% support. If there had been more votes cast (some other RFAs at the time, and now, attract over 50 or even 100 votes), and that ratio haad continued, the outcome may have been different. I know consensus in the community must be a very strong majority (about 75-80%+), but what I was looking to convery is that the RFA was unsuccessful because of mixed results, not a flat oppose from the community where everyone voted no. Sorry for any confusion, and don't read too much into it. Harro5 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if the ratio had continued the result would still be 70%. Ooh, sorry, couldn't resist nitpicking your math there :) Borisblue 05:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- And I just sat my VCE Maths exams a fortnight ago. Uh oh...Harro5 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- You just sat for your VCE Maths exams a fortnight ago. I hope you weren't taking the grammar exams as well! :) Borisblue 16:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- And I just sat my VCE Maths exams a fortnight ago. Uh oh...Harro5 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, if the ratio had continued the result would still be 70%. Ooh, sorry, couldn't resist nitpicking your math there :) Borisblue 05:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought that was an iffy choice of words. The RFA saw 11 support votes to 4 oppose votes and 1 neutral, which shows about 70% support. If there had been more votes cast (some other RFAs at the time, and now, attract over 50 or even 100 votes), and that ratio haad continued, the outcome may have been different. I know consensus in the community must be a very strong majority (about 75-80%+), but what I was looking to convery is that the RFA was unsuccessful because of mixed results, not a flat oppose from the community where everyone voted no. Sorry for any confusion, and don't read too much into it. Harro5 05:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Could you explain this edit, which was brought up at your previous RFA? Coffee 05:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- That edit was made 6 months ago, and was meant as a bit of a joke; I'd only been a serious editor for a month. I have made no other similar edits in over 5000 now (milestone achieved this week on RC-Patrol), and believe I have proven that it in no way demonstrates what sort of contributor I have been to Wikipedia. Hoep that settles this. Harro5 05:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I have always been involved in various things like these, and seem to go through a cycle of involvement in areas. I get involved in the various deletion processes (particularly speedy deletions in WP:NP, as shown by over 400 edits to now deletd articles; and AFD, TFD), and would also lend a hand at Did You Know, In the News, blocking/unblocking, and generally answering the call for a mop around the place. Plus, I can almost taste the sweet taste of the rollback button.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Obviously my pet, featured article Caulfield Grammar School, but also various endeavours and contributions, including the School Portal (which I manage), helping the NBA WikProject get up off the ground, and the other articles I've written or edited, of which there are many.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. Most notably, and recently, was a Request for Comment brought on by my reverting vandals-turned-victims, in which my actions were totally vindicated (see Bishonen's summary and supports for a good idea of what really was involved). I'm glad to say progress with these guys is being made to allow good editing to continue on what were the disputed articles. Other than that, I've had no major issues except for a little misudnerstanding where a user continually posted articles with no content (eg. [2] [3]) and I, on RC-Patrol at the time, left a brief note for content was read the wrong way by the user. But I'm pretty good with dispute resolution, and haven't had any trouble with long-time users or people contributing positively in their edits.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (56/1/0) ended 01:36 November 26 (UTC)
Sean Black (talk · contribs) – Sean has been here since June 11 [4]. Looking at that diff, one can see that his very first edit was reverting vandalism, and he did it correctly, and he used an edit summary even. This first edit showed good potential, and from what I've seen, he's been great. He's got 1949 edits as of me typing this up (please don't say 'will support at 2000' it's rather pointless ;-) Let's go over some statistics: last 500 edits (as of 00:33 November 18 UTC) have been between the end of November 1 and November 18, so I believe he passes the activity test. He is JUST shy (983 as of typing this) of 1,000 article edits, he has over 400 talkspace edits, and he has over 350 Wikipedia edits. I believe he's past all those bars. Sean works on everything from articles to welcoming newbies to RC Patrol to complimenting people. I think he's earned the extra tools, and proven he's to be trusted. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Wow. I'm shocked, but I will accept. This is an honor, and I do hope that I can be trusted by the community. Thank you again.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support A productive and fair editor.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support good overall work, would like to see them with admin tools. «»Who?¿?meta 02:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. NSLE (讨论+extra) 02:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good editor --Rogerd 04:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per above. BD2412 T 04:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- SupportMONGO 05:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andross' enemy is my enemy...uh, Red's friend is my friend... (Plus, I've seen you around and think you'll do just fine). -Mysekurity 06:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support and happy to do it! – ClockworkSoul 06:49, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Solid user, trustworthy. Xoloz 06:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Per all of the above. He deserves the mop. Banes 07:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 08:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support from slasher moviez lover. - Darwinek 10:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I coulda sworn he was one! Hiding talk 15:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Suppoer Great user, trust the nominator. - GregAsche 17:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support! Kirill Lokshin 17:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --pgk(talk) 19:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Good luck, mate. Blackcap (talk) 20:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good active vandalism fighter. --Nlu 21:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Robert T | @ | C 02:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support great work on several horror film articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support looks good and, of course, I've been brainwashed by User:Redwolf24. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Calm and rational. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as a fellow troll. — JIP | Talk 11:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. All my personal interactions with him have been positive, his answers below make me believe he'll use the admin toolbox responsibly and we need more admins. It's an open and shut case. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 12:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support; this user is unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yup. Martin 20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. KHM03 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 00:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Blimey I haven't stated it already. Alf melmac 02:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support 172 07:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Willmcw 09:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nom.Gator (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- --Jaranda(watz sup) 16:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- This user will never, ever be an admin while I'm here. I guess I'll just leave then Support. Fahrenheit Royale 17:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support cool person (or so it seems ;) --TimPope 23:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good record, will be a good match for the job. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A fine fellow, deserving of the office. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Lookin' good ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 06:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hayupp. A little low on the article-space edits, but editcount ain't everything, so everyone keeps saying. Has shown good skills since he's been here, so I'll add my scrawled X in the plus column. Grutness...wha? 08:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thryduulf 08:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - no objections from me. --Ixfd64 09:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Should handle admin duties with aplom. --GraemeL (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen him in action; he'd make a good admin. Owen× ☎ 17:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Per nom. Good record--Dakota t e 21:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes. Exceptional newcomer, an asset to Wikipedia. - Mailer Diablo 23:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I would have nominated him if I had know he wasn't a member of the mop and flamethrower federation. Titoxd(?!?) 17:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I thought he was an admin already O_o TDS (talk • contribs) 04:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: --Bhadani 15:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 19:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support.per nomination.--Pomegranite | talk 02:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. +sj + 07:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. AnnH (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well I was going to vote oppose but it seems he reached 2,000 edits...Support! (just in case you didn't know I was kidding about the 2,000 mark thing) Derktar 17:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC).
- Support. -- DS1953 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Boothy443 err yeah whatever :) (No one should go unopposed) ALKIVAR™ 07:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- He just broke 2000 edits, and so now is infinitely more worthy of adminship, QED. Blackcap (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- See? Now you people don't have any excuses. Go to it! :)--Sean|Black 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I believe that deleting speedies, closing AfDs, assisting with backlog (WP:RM, WP:CP, ect) will be high on the list, but I don't anticipate blocking too much (Titoxd and Curps are better at it, no reason to step on their toes), although I'll do so if necessary. Basically, I'll help out however I can!--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Tough one. Many of my edits are minor, tweaking little things here and there, but I think I did a good job on Jason Voorhees, Friday the 13th (film series), which I heavily cleaned up as part of an ongoning project to improve horror film related articles. Critters (film series) was something I picked from WP:RA, and I feel that that's a significantly good article for a third rate Gremlins rip-off :), and Pip and Jane Baker, which I was surprised didn't exist before. However, I'm most proud of the diversity of the articles I've edited- everything from The Brain of Morbius to Hamas to Galvatron to John Kerry. I think that I have both greatly increased my knowledge of the world through WP, and hopefully, others knowledge of it as well. Additionally, I'm very proud of those new users that I helped learn ways of WP- It's more than just welcomes, it's answering what many of us percieve as "dumb questions" kindly, honestly, and openly.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A.Mostly no, as I tend to avoid contentious areas. However, I was part of a nasty edit war at List of minor Doctor Who villains which I felt I dealt with well. Additionally, I recently started editing Political views of Lyndon LaRouche and related articles in an attempt to broaden my Wikipedian perspective: as most know, these articles have a history (including two ArbCom decisions), but I feel that the editing has been mostly civil, with less POV pushers and far more good faith concerns about neutrality and original research, and I think that I have handled it well.--Sean|Black 02:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
MarkGallagher (fuddlemark)
Final (100/0/0) ended 15:56 25 November 2005 (UTC)
MarkGallagher (talk · contribs · count) – This miscreant seems to have been around for ages. He seems like a good chap, but is always bothering me to do administrator stuff. I'm nominating the blighter to get him out of my hair. He refused a nomination by Phroziac last month. He's Australian and he often signs himself as "fuddlemark". What more is there to say? Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Oh, crikey. I accept. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Good chap, should be useful with the mop and broom.
- Fuddle Him. Immediately The Land 16:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can't believe Tony beat me to this nomination! Mark has good sense and would benefit from having admin tools; he's done good work in article space as well as helping clear up disputes. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support out of strong respect for nominator.Gator (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Very impressed with his boldness when he first came here, and I'm certain he can be trusted with adminship. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Duk 17:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Grue 17:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cuddle Fuddle. Bishonen|talk 17:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support - who hasn't seen him about the place? --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've seen him all over the place and I also trust Tony's judgement as nominator. Carbonite | Talk 17:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - a conscientious editor who already shadows many administrative functions. His attitudes to cracking down on image misuse and copyright is commendable. Give this man a mop! Rob Church Talk 18:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, I seriously need to go through WP:LA and figure out who is an admin and who isn't, because I seriously thought he was one. Titoxd(?!?) 18:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Need more admins. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-18 18:15
Oppose ∾ The ruddy blighter thwapped me in IRC.n00b support ∾ Mark seems to be a good chap with a square head on his shoulders and a strong desire to improve Wikipedia. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 18:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)- Support. From what I've seen he merits it. Aabha (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. He clearly knows the rules, and will use the admin tools wisely. Rje 18:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. KHM03 18:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Even-headed, open to criticism, understands well the role of an admin. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nominator and others who have yet to raise a single solitary objection.MONGO 19:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Yes, without a doubt! Banes 20:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Per all other folks, especally the bit about the square head...we need more of that. Rx StrangeLove 20:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Passed lightning adminship-exam, and mindspillage showed me an example of conflict resolution here: [5]. Kim Bruning 20:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per my reasoning on Ianblair's RfA. Youngamerican 20:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- confident this user would not abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: Astonishing: I was on IRC with him at the same time (rare for me to be there), and I never heard a peep about this. That's some good non-spamming. Geogre 21:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support gladly. NatusRoma 21:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good lord, you're not one? Ral315 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme support per all of the above (and the RFA cliché #1, but Ral already used that one). --JoanneB 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as per nominator. Hall Monitor 23:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme fuddle. BD2412 T 23:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good work, deserves the extra tools. feydey 00:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Always reminds me of Leroy Anderson's Fiddle Faddle (for the benefit of the musicabalists). --Michael Snow 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme "Australia are going to the World Cup" support, heheh. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- {{RFA cliche}}. Radiant_>|< 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme I-welcomed-him support. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. has a good history and needs the tools.--Dakota t e 02:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Aye. A good man. encephalon 02:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. definitely a good user who would make good use of the mop and bucket. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Rogerd 04:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support for very funny man! Xoloz 06:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- He comes from a land down under. --Merovingian 08:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Only know him from IRC, but he seems like he knows what the heck he's doing. ;-) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A great guy who'd do a fine job. —DO'Neil 11:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Now there's a bandwagon I'm willing to jump on. We need more admins! - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Answers to questions below are exactly right IMHO. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Thunderbrand 14:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. One of the most prolific users I've ever seen: I see him around here everyday.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Shimgray | talk | 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: I am sure real miscreants shall run away for cover seeing this "miscreant". --Bhadani 16:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support see him round often. Dlyons493 Talk 17:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fuddle. — JIP | Talk 18:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Ann Heneghan (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support pgk(talk) 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Blackcap (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support ² --FireFox ™ 21:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fuddled Alien Support will use the tools well. Alf melmac 21:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Elmer Fudd support. ;) ナイトスタリオン ✉ 23:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Absolutely. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, oh my goodness me, yes. -Splashtalk 03:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strewth!, give this chap a mop.--cj | talk 12:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Will make a good admin. Jayjg (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hell yeah. Martin 20:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Of course. David Gerard 23:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support; obvious one. Good work, good user, will be good admin. Antandrus (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Always turning up on my watchlist. Plus I like the term "fuddle me", it sounds rude :D lol. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 00:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support should have voted a long time ago, despite the immenent landslide. Wikipedia needs more fuddlemarks. Karmafist 04:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. It's starting to get a lil tight up here on the bandwagon. Harro5 04:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Holy mackrel anoint him now Support great Wikipedian, great guy, Fuddle will truly be an admin among admins. Babajobu 04:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. What more can I add? IceKarmaॐ 04:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I almost didn't bother checking out the RfA for a Mark Gallagher, who I had never heard of but luckily I did, for Mark is fuddlemark in disguise. Whatever name he uses, he is a fine Wikipedian and deserves to enter the pantheon of admins. --Roisterer 04:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to oppose simply because he told me that he wouldn't run for admin until January when I wanted to nominate him. But I won't. I'll find some other way to get even with him (evil laugh). Kelly Martin (talk) 05:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - has made valuable contributions as a user and I'm sure he will make a fine admin. Capitalistroadster 11:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- He isn't an admin? Well I'll be fuddled! I'll add my support - despite him being an Aussie ;) - for three reasons: 1) Mark's a great wikipedian; 2) he'll make a great admin; 3) Tony's refreshingly honest nomination! Grutness...wha? 13:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Support Of course Outstanding User --Jaranda(watz sup) 16:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support this is going to pass, I'm just doing it for more edits....Mwahahahahahahaha!!!!! Okay, maybe I just want to support, or do I? Fahrenheit Royale 17:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A solid non-fool; well deserved. PJM 19:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support - This fine Australian editor has done wonders for this project and I'm extremely happy to support his nomination. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hah he said Crickey whoops! Should that have been bolded? Anyways, good user and total support. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Did I miss a memo? Is it Long Overdue Nomination Week? --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'll 84th that! -- DS1953 06:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Would be a valuable addition to the admin team ;] --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 06:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme fuddlecycle on wheels support. —RaD Man (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy support That's right, just close this now and promote him. Proto t c 10:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent contributer. Would have voted sooner, but I decided not to vote during my own RFA. --GraemeL (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, of course. - Mailer Diablo 23:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strewth, I know some say that he doesn't know Christmas from Bourke Street, but I reckon and he's cunning as a dunny rat and he'll be flat out like a lizard drinking clearing out admin backlogs, plus has Buckley's chance of abusing his powers. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support' Johann Wolfgang 00:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sheep Support Baaaa... Borisblue 00:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support (just in case) Doc ask? 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Fuddling him ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 15:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Sarah Ewart 03:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- w00t. Jacqui★ 16:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 19:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Someone set up us the support ALKIVAR™ 07:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme fuddle duddle support. --Deathphoenix 13:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme 100 GET support -- grm_wnr Esc 14:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose section moved to BJAODN. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- Comments section moved to BJAODN. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 00:31, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I do RC patrol from time-to-time (whenever I'm bored, really), and it would be nice to be able to stop bugging admins (except Tony_Sidaway, who's fun to bug) to do admin stuff for me. I have worked on copyright problems, and have been active in AfD (if not a constant presence), and clearing up CP backlogs and closing AfDs is an obvious extension of this.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm one of those terribly immodest people with a "brag list" on my userpage. 'Course, what I consider brag-worthy might be just routine edits for most users. Pride of place is Lang Hancock, which was rescued from cleanup. I'm also rather fond of the major copyedits I made to Manchester United F.C. and softball (in fact, softball was my first logged-in contrib). I'm also proud of DeForest Richards, which was a rewrite of a copyvio. The stuff I prefer doing most is writing or copyediting – RC patrol is enjoyable enough in its way, but I get restless if I go too long without adding or editing actual content.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I haven't been involved in that many conflicts; most of those I have have been resolved by talking about them on talkpages or IRC. I've recently been trying, like User:Aaron Brenneman and User:Geogre, to push up the quality of nominations and votes on AfD. Sometimes it's worked, sometimes it hasn't, sometimes it's led to conflict. One incident that occurred a few weeks ago was a slow-motion "war", of sorts, with a user who insisted on adding irrelevant trivia to Chalmette, Louisiana. I am not all that happy with how I handled it – I should have taken it to the talkpage, or asked for an admin to help me – but I like to think I learned something about how to deal with conflict from the episode, and from discussions on IRC afterwards.
- 4 Are you Lir? Please provide evidence stating otherwise. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (56/0/0) ended 05:45 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Demi (talk · contribs) – I have been here for a little over a year, editing with varying degrees of activity. Once or twice people have offered to nominate me for adminship (probably to stop me bugging them to perform admin tasks), but as I recently encountered a few situations where admin privileges would have been useful, I thought I would do it myself. Demi T/C 15:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: This is a self-nomination. Demi T/C 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Duh with a capital D! Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 15:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable, verifiable, extensively sourced, and widely linked to. BD2412 T 15:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support not an admin? Unbelievable. Grue 16:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a valuable admin. Arguably we're under-represented with admins who want to use their powers to restore articles with value and unblock accidentally blocked users. The Land 16:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sigh. RFA cliche #1. Maybe it's because you look like User:Denni. I should know better than to make assumptions by now. —Cryptic (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- As one of the people who has previously offered to nominate him, of course I support. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support And glad to do it, engaged and intelligent. Rx StrangeLove 16:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme "It's a travesty that he isn't one already" support --Celestianpower háblame 16:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, of course. Antandrus (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support no brainer.Gator (talk) 17:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- merge into Denni. Wait, wrong page. Er, support. Alphax τεχ 17:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Support of course --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --FireFox ™ 18:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Thunderbrand 18:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I also like your comments on your userpage regarding Questionable or Offensive Images--MONGO 19:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. My compliments for your extensive and clear use of edit summaries, particulalry the quality! And about the images: just ask Toby, no? The Minister of War 21:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy Promote, patent awesomeness :)--Sean|Black 22:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: I honestly assumed Demi already was one. Jonathunder 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Whaaat Demi's not already an admin. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Rogerd 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, will be an invaluable addition to the <censored>. Always glad to support someone who will really benefit from the tools. Rje 00:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support looks like a good candidate. Matthew Brown 00:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- n00b support ∾ Mrs. Kutchner has been extremely helpful to me as I slowly begin to navigate my way through the underbelly of Wikipedia, and is a very level-headed individual to boot. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 02:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, very helpful user, extra points for the selfnom. Bishonen|talk 02:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 05:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Experienced user with strong contrib's. Marskell 10:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Abso-bloody-lutely, support. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --Duk 17:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Undelete, this article was improperly speedied, clearly asserts notability, and is identified as one of the essential subjects of Wikipedia by the WP:1.0 team. Huh? Oh, shoot, this is RfA... Support, same reasons: clearly notable, as I see him often in Wikipedia, and has been identified as an essentially good editor by everyone above and me. Titoxd(?!?) 18:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, passes the lightning admin test, and sometimes helps out resolving disputes (my 2 criteria). Kim Bruning 20:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: this user is unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: It's great to see someone wait a bit and then ask when the toolset is actually useful. Geogre 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Per above, I think Demi would make a good admin; also a bit shocked you're not one. Ral315 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. People like Demi make me wonder if we should have a WP:CSD-esque speedying for noms, he absolutely deserves it, he's helped me several times after asking on IRC. And oh yeah, his helpfulness that i've seen waives my opinion of the negative aspect of self-noms here. Karmafist 22:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support: --Bhadani 16:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - fine answers to the stock questions, good edit history - perfect candidate. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Un Demi, s'il vous plâit. — JIP | Talk 18:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --pgk(talk) 18:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Splashtalk 03:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. See no issues here. Jayjg (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 00:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Desperate, clamoring support an eminently reasonable fellow, a great Wikipedian, and OMG he's not already an admin?! Babajobu 04:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- They put a gun to my head and made me Support, those bastards. Fahrenheit Royale 17:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. No coercion was necessary here. Hall Monitor 17:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah. JFW | T@lk 01:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support! Sarge Baldy 03:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Yet another obvious case. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I-thought-he-was-an-admin-already Support --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 06:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would like it known that I was the fifty first person to vote in support of Demi. I would also like an explanation why this did not happen months ago?! Thryduulf 08:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Obvious admin fodder. --GraemeL (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Duh. - Mailer Diablo 23:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Kefalonia 18:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
This vote was made after the deadline:
- Support. utcursch | talk 03:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- Do you have an email id set? Alphax τεχ 05:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I do. Demi T/C 14:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Are you a he or a she? Just curious since some people have called you a he/she. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am a he, and I recognize that my feminine username will lead folks the other way--but no worries, I've never minded much about the pronouns. I don't mind being called he, she, or, as you have it, "he/she" (grin). The genesis of my username is too desperately geeky to explain, but it's not related to the name Demi. Demi T/C 09:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- It can't be that geeky considering that we have rabid Star Wars fans, rabid Star Trek fans (careful they bite), and that's only two categories of users. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 04:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think sex, gender, race, or anything else like that matters. Demi could be a cute little literate chipmunk from Alpha Centauri, a genetically engineered clone of Shakespeare&Einstein&Newton&Socrates, or something inbetween, and it doesn't matter. What matters is the text we see, and this text doesn't have any sex or gender associated with it, nor does it matter. --Durin 14:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Though you'll only back a literate Centaurian chipmunk for admin if they're over 25, Durin? The Land 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- A) "25" had nothing to do with who I would vote for, it had to do with who I would nominate. B) It is no longer a standard of mine. But, I guess we're not allowed to evolve, eh? I admitted my error and moved on. I guess you're not willing to move on. Oh well. --Durin 15:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't aware you'd changed your view on the matter. Apologies. The Land 15:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- A) "25" had nothing to do with who I would vote for, it had to do with who I would nominate. B) It is no longer a standard of mine. But, I guess we're not allowed to evolve, eh? I admitted my error and moved on. I guess you're not willing to move on. Oh well. --Durin 15:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Though you'll only back a literate Centaurian chipmunk for admin if they're over 25, Durin? The Land 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am a he, and I recognize that my feminine username will lead folks the other way--but no worries, I've never minded much about the pronouns. I don't mind being called he, she, or, as you have it, "he/she" (grin). The genesis of my username is too desperately geeky to explain, but it's not related to the name Demi. Demi T/C 09:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I just wanted to say to everyone how gratified and appreciative I am to their participation and support. Thank you all so much! Demi T/C 16:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. Well, a lot of my editing has been done in association with cleaning out the Wikipedia cleanup categories, so it's fair to say I'm attracted to backlogs, and I would take turns at those associated with WP:CP and the various deletion pages. A few times I have noticed articles like Witty worm, The Boatniks and Bobinogs get speedied, it would be nice in those cases to be able to view the deleted page to see if real articles can be made from them. I have helped revise blocks for legitimate users caught by autoblocks or IP blocks, and it would be nice to be more responsive in this area. I've also tackled the occasional technical and formatting task, so it would be useful to correct edits in the interface if necessary.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I would say I'm pleased with my overall contributions more than any particular piece, though I find turning deleted or otherwise "hopeless" substubs into real articles, such as with Witty worm, very satisfying. I'm happy about cases where I've been able to "unbite" a newbie or otherwise help out a fellow Wikipedian, even if it's a one-character edit. I believe in the "free" aspect of Wikipedia, so am pleased with having generated free media such as spoken Wikipedia articles and photographs.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. Yes, I have edited contentious articles such as those related to Adolf Hitler, and conflicts have arisen over the proper usage of the {{Spoken Wikipedia}} template. My first and default reaction in almost any kind of conflict is to gather the opinions of other participants--I figure the more people looking at an issue and offering input, the better. Civility is very important to me, and if I feel myself getting upset about things, a break is in order.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (6/8/2) ended 05:43 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Niz (talk · contribs) – A self-nom (i understand its acceptable)! Have reached the 1000-edit milestone at approx 6 months usage (plus edits from previous anon period), mainly adding content, especially bios for film-makers, and working on genre entries. Also participated in vfds (nominating, voting), performing merges, redirects, reverting vandalism, copyediting, peer reviewing, and nominating collaborations. Niz 23:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: self-nom Niz 00:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support does good work. Would be an asset.Gator (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Lack of interaction just shows effective noncontroversial work. I'm not convinced the people with full talk pages are the best Wikipedians. Smit 21:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 05:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, doesn't seem likely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Opposers are too circumspect on this one. Pcb21 Pete 17:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support In agreement with the User Smit. Talk pages of most people are like the same 3 or 4 talking to each other like chat. Not much work done just chatting with the buddies. The candidate has a good work record.--Pomegranite 01:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. 1000 edits in 6 months is not much. Not enough involvement in maintainance and deletion-related procedures (more specifically, not enough involvement to convince me that this user is sufficiently familiar with Wiki procedures). And I would have liked to see more thought put into the guide questions, especially considering this is a self-nomination. Coffee 14:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, reluctantly. Editor sounds quite nice, and article content is paramount, but some substantial experience with project space is needed. "Better safe than sorry vote" until editor has a record in that area. Xoloz 20:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extremely weak oppose. 1000 edits and 6 months on Wikipedia is all fine, but what I find strange is the low activity of the talk page. When I was sysopped, I also had been here for 6 months, and already had close to 40 topics on my talk page. This is a sign of lack of interaction with other Wikipedians. If the candidate replies to this I might change my vote. — JIP | Talk 20:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, per JIP.--Sean|Black 22:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Seems like a nice guy, but with no community interaction, it is difficult to assess the candidate's communication skills. His answers to the questions below make me think Niz would have some trouble dealing with day-to-day admin tasks. Perhaps try again in a few months? Owen× ☎ 22:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Seems like a nice fellow, but concerned about newness combined with lack of community interaction. Needs a little more time and activity on Talk: pages. Jayjg (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose no community interaction, only 1000 edits in 6 months, etc. I just don't believe Niz to be ready, sorry. Fahrenheit Royale 17:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. While I generally hold admins to a high standard, I hold self-nominating ones to an even higher one. Your short answers to the questions are therefore not good. In particular, some examples for question #3 would have been nice, plus a little more than "etc" for question number one. Turnstep 22:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- I think that you are a really good editor, but you have too few usertalk edits. A potential Admin should have more that 100. Why dont you join the Welcoming committee or Wikipedia:Esperanza? You can meet friends, and you could gain trust from the community. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 01:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral due to conflicting signs I would disagree with my fellow Wikipedians who vote Oppose based on the number of edits or Talk Page edits, since I personally believe that not all admins are going to be alike in either scope or personality. I was ready to vote for this user, but after reading the answers to the questions below I have a harder time voting Support. I feel that in situations like this, where you're new to the community, you have to do something that shows how important this position is for you. Answering these questions shows us, the voters, why we should or should not give you this very important power called "being an Admin". If you're newer (by this I mean very new), you're going to have to demonstrate a lot more that you deserve to have these powers. I hope this makes sense. LOL (Then again, I'm a fairly new user myself, so I really don't have much grounds to talk if I choose to do an RfA.) --Martin Osterman 03:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- You're doing just fine :) Keep up the good work a while longer and I look forward to supporting you next time. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 23:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not happy with the "hidden message" someone put as an HTML comment at the bottom on the Oppose section. If you have something to say, do so publically, don't hide it. Turnstep 22:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. Completing votes for deletion, dealing with vandalism, etc
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Mark Kermode and Jerry Sadowitz are my favourite in terms of writing-style, Nevada-tan and Horror film for informational content. My key articles are listed at User:Niz
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. Vandalism and advertising on numerous page, reverted where appropriate, sent messages to the (almost always anon) users where necessary. Requested a block once via normal channels. Otherwise discussion on article and user talk pages is enough.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (0/12/1) ended 02:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
EddieSegoura (talk · contribs) – My names is EddieSegoura. I has been surfing this site for months now and has edited quite a few pages. Unfortunately, the edits were under those numeric IP addresses. I am seeking promotion because I think I can help people out. I do have a career of being a chat host on AOL back in 1998 and it was a successful experiance. Hoever, I have to quit in 1999 because the forum moved to the web. I am aware the moderators are privvy to things normal users can't to and I know it's a big challenge and responsibility. I am willing to accept this job. EddieSegoura 08:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Support
Oppose
- Oppose as you have only been here for three days. You need some more time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Response: Although I only used an account for 3 days, I've been visiting and tweaking pages for months. While I'm not going to go into details, I've been surfing this site for a much longer time then You think.
- Oppose I rarely oppose, but you need more time to learn.Gator (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Response: Read Above
- Oppose. Hi. I'm going to have to oppose for now, for three reasons: 1) there is no way to confirm your experience based on the edit history of your account; 2) you have made a few errors in this RfA that lead me to question your knowledge of Wikipedia editing - in particular, you have typed your responses to the above two "oppose" comments with flush lines instead of indenting them, which breaks the numbering of the list (I have fixed this), and you placed your nomination in the middle of the RfA page, instead of at the top where new nominations are directed to go (I have fixed this also); 3) per your answers to the questions below, you state that you intend to help out by "Correcting mistakes, adding new facts as they become available", but this requires no admin powers (there are plenty of users who have racked up thousands of edits worth of quality contributions of that nature without having any interest in becoming admins). Also, I'd like you to clarify your answer to question 3 below, for reasons I will explain there. BD2412 T 21:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Very strongly oppose. This editor created, I presumed accidentally, Eddie Segoura. I speedy userfied it per CSD A7 (I could have just gotten rid of it). He left me an extremely patronising {test1}, telling me I was "experimenting with the delete function". He then recreated the article, after removing it from his user page. Needless to say, I deleted it again (only once: the deletion log is the victim of my impatience with the deadness of Wiki). He is unfamiliar with the standards of the encyclopedia, patronising, recreates speedy material, Q1 says he doesn't understand what adminship is about and Q3 openly admits to intent to take actions tantamount to vandalism, and which would certainly earn him a block if repetitiously carried out. He didn't answer the questions in the first draft of this RfA, didn't add it to the page until prompted, and then added it to the wrong part of the page. I would normally suggest that a new user try again in a few months, but I wouldn't wish to mislead, so I won't. (Oh, and he appears not to know how to use the indentation features properly — somebody has had to fix it for him. And don't lecture me on biting, since I'm not, and he says he's far from new.) -Splashtalk 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note he has also created, and had deleted, Wikipedia:Eddie Segoura. He claims this was an accident. Even with AGF, he should have known by now not to recreate the article. -Splashtalk 23:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I thought about deleting these votes, because these users are not aware of the fact that I did edit pages using different IP addresses. I will be more than happy to Email the contributions prior to creating this username. I have decided to leave these vote alone and will respond to any further comments from these users. —EddieSegoura 6:32 PM; November 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Thinking about deleting votes is probably a nail in the metaphorical coffin. I don't really mind what the contributions as IPs were. My experience of you is so overwhelmingly negative that they aren't going to change my mind, unless they are something truly astonishing. -Splashtalk 23:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I thought about deleting these votes, because these users are not aware of the fact that I did edit pages using different IP addresses. I will be more than happy to Email the contributions prior to creating this username. I have decided to leave these vote alone and will respond to any further comments from these users. —EddieSegoura 6:32 PM; November 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Note he has also created, and had deleted, Wikipedia:Eddie Segoura. He claims this was an accident. Even with AGF, he should have known by now not to recreate the article. -Splashtalk 23:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, for all the reasons stated by others, and the answers to your questions below. —Cleared as filed. 22:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, too inexperienced. Korg (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Read above.
- Oppose, you may be willing to accept the job, but we aren't willing to accept you. Too inexperienced. Nothing more to say. Fahrenheit Royale 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - more proof of inexperience is he fact that an RfA lasts SEVEN, not TEN days. And deleting these votes is vandalism. NSLE (讨论+extra) 00:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose as above. Lord Bob 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Admins should have some basic knowledge of Wikipedia editing, including the fact that we don't use <a href> or <img> tags. Evil Monkey - Hello 01:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry. This candidate has not provided sufficient reason that we should support him. DS 02:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - let's see. First, we have a case of insufficient time. He's been here less than a week; certainly not long enough to learn any policies, and from what I gather, he's made no attempt to. Second, casually mentioning fiddling his Oppose votes. That's just not helping whatsoever; and demonstrates, as I noted in point one, a lack of understanding of how things work here. Third, his answer to question one makes me believe he doesn't realise that he doesn't need adminship. Fourth, his answer to question three, which I read as, "I've ordered people to vandalise Wikipedia in the past, for my own entertainment" - that doesn't strike me as responsible, nor helpful. All in all, a clear-cut oppose vote - this is not someone I would trust with adminship. Rob Church Talk 02:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Response: Because of the all misunderstanding and negative feedback, I have will try this again. If things don't work well on the second attempt, I will try again next month. EddieSegoura 03:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral: There's not enough information to go on. Would you please list the IPs you have been editing from? --Durin 23:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Response:Please <a href="mailto:Eddie@EddieSegoura.com">Email Me. I will not post them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieSegoura (talk • contribs)
- Why are you unwilling to make your contributions public? That is generally not a good sign. —Cleared as filed. 23:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. People would possibly be willing to vote for you if you were willing to show us your overall contributions, and not just the very limited set made under this username you've only made over the last week. There's just not enough information to work with. I could e-mail you to get the IPs from you, but far more than myself need them; you should post them here so all people can see. If you're not willing to do that, I suggest you withdraw your nomination until you've developed a significant editing history under this username. --Durin 23:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Response:Please <a href="mailto:Eddie@EddieSegoura.com">Email Me. I will not post them here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EddieSegoura (talk • contribs)
Comments
- Just noticed that you are not listed on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page and you have not answered the questions below. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- EddieSegoura is either a newbie, who should not be (further) bitten, or a troll who should not be encouraged. (I did enjoy his edit summary when he added this RfA [6]). Piling on isn't called for here, that's for sure. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Eddie, I do not want to pile on on the oppose votes, but please consider retracting your RFA. You're clearly not ready for it yet, no matter how many different IP's you have been using in the past. And whatever you do, don't even think about deleting votes, as you indicated above. Whether or not you agree with them, you are never supposed to delete them, even if you think they are based on unjust arguments. --JoanneB 23:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. Correcting mistakes, adding new facts as they become available. My favorite pages deal with the NYC Subway. Since I live in NY and ride the Subway, I can contibute a fairly good amount of material on each line.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Sites on TV Shows, BMT Sea Beach Line, NYC Subway.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I've had a few people revert or delete new pages I create just for the fun of it. I realize that when I create a new page, I need to save it on My computer so I could restore deleted page if it gets messed up.
- Request for clarification - do you mean to say that you have "created pages just for the fun of it", and that those pages were then deleted? or do you mean to say that you created new pages which were then deleted, and which the person doing the deleting was deleting just for the fun of it? BD2412 T 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've had users delete and vandalism pages "Just for the fun of it". I keep a copy of the original file so I can correct or restore the current version. I've just checked those pages, and they're fine.
- You're aware, I hope, that pages can only be deleted by administrators, who make up a very small subset of particularly trusted users. I doubt any page you made was deleted for the fun of the deleter. BD2412 T 00:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've had users delete and vandalism pages "Just for the fun of it". I keep a copy of the original file so I can correct or restore the current version. I've just checked those pages, and they're fine.
- Request for clarification - do you mean to say that you have "created pages just for the fun of it", and that those pages were then deleted? or do you mean to say that you created new pages which were then deleted, and which the person doing the deleting was deleting just for the fun of it? BD2412 T 22:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- A. I've had a few people revert or delete new pages I create just for the fun of it. I realize that when I create a new page, I need to save it on My computer so I could restore deleted page if it gets messed up.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (12/8/6) ended 15:13 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Sherurcij (talk · contribs) – Well I've been around for just over a year now I guess, and while I'm not really lusting after power - I would appreciate having the ability to block vandals myself, rather than having to message somebody or leave a note and walk through all their continuing edits.
My personal goal is to eventually get definitive articles on each of the 19 hijackers, though at this point I've only gotten 5 of the articles up to a level I'm confidant with. (And I've been working on them since July! *cries to self a little*). Anyways, my reasons/philosophy for writing are fairly well summed up at the top of my userpage
Obviously there will be people who oppose the nomination, which is fine, I don't know that I'd do any differently in your shoes to be honest...but it can't hurt to try and get the couple tools I'd like anyways. At least one 'problem' I'll admit to is that I have a tendency to leave brusque edit-descriptions, especially when dealing with vandals, simply as a way of adding a bit of levity to the situation. (Two recent examples would be omg vandalism is soooo funny, u r l33t-ass man! hero, spect! so awesome d00d! and I'm not sure which burns my eyes more, the atrocious spelling or the horrible POV). They're not meant to be mean-spirited, rather instead just to amuse (and entice to read the article?) people perhaps looking at Recent Changes, but I recognise that interpretation is in the eyes of the beholder.
Anyways, in summary, I mostly try to add information (and images) to articles, and occasionally find myself making small copyedits to articles I'm reading for my own research - I like to take a measure of pride in my ability to maintain NPOV...which I guess can be best summed up in my response here I admit it, I'm an NPOV-addict, and frequently finding myself editing it out of other articles (as well as my own), both left-wing and right-wing and every other -ist you can name...the world is a biased place, even when only sub-consciously. Sherurcij 10:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support need more admins who take on the vandals.Gator (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A quick review of his contributions shows an intelligent, articulate editor, and a true encyclopedist. His interactions with others show an even-tempered attitude (with rare exceptions, as MONGO pointed out) and good understanding of consensus. I'd be happy to see more consistent edit summaries, and an expansion beyond the topic of the 19 hijackers, but I have no problem trusting him with the Block button. It is also refreshing to see another editor eager to save articles on CAT:CSD.Owen× ☎ 21:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support As an editor Sherurcij has made intelligent, interesting, fair-minded contributions. I am sure they will prove to be an intelligent, fair-minded admin. -- Geo Swan 02:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Seems to be a good editor and vandal fighter. --Rogerd 04:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 05:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Exchange between myself and Sherurcij on his talk page tell me this editor is smart and patient with blunt questions and doesn't hide his true sentiments. Hence my vote change to support.--MONGO 10:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support seems ok. Grue 19:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, We need admins with participation on wide range of subjects.Zeq 08:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 01:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah man! You're being opposed by all the right people. Grace Note 13:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I like the idea of re-cat'ing the 'NPOV Disputes' category, and adding templates. We are, as I userstand it, encouraged to Be Bold. I also don't see why one should oppose based on a couple (actually from here it looks like an iffy one) factual errors on one article. I would encourage you, however, to tone the rvv edit summaries down a little bit, some of them are somewhat extreme (this is the only thing keeping me from voting Strong Support. The merge thing to me, as well, sounds exactly as Sherurcij explained it. And I probably would have expected the 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage article to contain at least something about George Alexander to be considered a Merge. (at least, in my mind, that makes sense.) I probably would have also thought it vandalism following this comment: "Hahahahahaha, impolite to him? He's dead! He didn't even do anything besides having those pretty zeros. --SPUI (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)". I also applaud pointing out your failings and faults right there in the nom, and the fact that you seem to have invited your detractors to your RfA ;] Anyhow, Good luck, I think you would make a fine admin! --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 22:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Does some good work and is dedicated. Good admin material. deeptrivia 02:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose
for now, but I want to be fair and I'll reconsider depending on Sherurcij's response.I had some problems editing with him at Shehzad Tanweer, one of the 7/7 London suicide bombers. Sherurcij edited a number of mistakes into the article (factual, spelling, and grammar) and insisted that using an image of Tanweer about to board a train before blowing himself up was POV, which was bizarre given that Scotland Yard had confirmed Tanweer was one of the bombers. Sherurcij also fiercely opposed saying in the intro how many had died overall in the bombing (56 dead, 700 wounded), arguing that Tanweer should be associated only with the number he had actually killed (7), even though the police had confirmed the four bombers acted as part of a joint enteprise, and that it was a matter of chance exactly how many each man had actually killed. (And in fact, in his first preferred version, he didn't even want the number of people Tanweer had killed directly to be mentioned until the very last paragraph. [7]) He also uploaded a number of images without tagging and sourcing them, and even though he was warned they'd be deleted and was asked to find the source (I offered to find the right tag if he would just tell me where he'd found them), he ignored the queries, and the images were of course deleted, then he didn't go back to delete the red links. All in all, it was irresponsible editing, in my view. See Talk:Shehzad_Tanweer#Reverting until the end of the page, and here's his first revert of my edits, [8] where he has a brief intro saying Tanweer is a suspect (even though the police had already confirmed), but with no details until the very end of the article, and with odd writing like "his suspected death." However, Sherurcij may have moved on since then, so I suppose that's my question to you Sherurcij: have you? ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)- Because I'm wordy, reply is behind a cutline Sherurcij 05:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for being honest, but I don't see that anything has changed. You're still insisting, for example, that he wasn't unemployed beyond he helped out occasionally in his father's fish and chip shop. But all the sources reported that he was "unemployed" or "effectively unemployed," [9] and in fact the high levels of unemployment in that area are seen as partly responsible for the appeal of radical Islam to young men who may feel they have limited prospects, so to ignore what the sources were saying about that was odd, in my view. I'll stick with my oppose vote. Sorry. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Understandable, I rather assumed you would oppose when I invited you here, but hoped at least to have some criticism against me from somebody who's engaged me 'at close quarters' before. To defend the unemployed versus part-time work argument however, I'll point out that I sourced both the Washington Post and Daily Mail as stating that he held a part-time job at the fish & chip shop. Anyways, not to be combative, just because I'd like both of us to be able to show sources for our claims Sherurcij 06:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- But here we go again. Neither of your links works. You were arguing this before you ever even claimed to have found a source, Sherurcij. He didn't have a job, and you reverted and reverted to prevent anyone from saying that in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rather than claim an apparently-valid link is "fake" or "doesn't work", it's sometimes best to see if codes have stripped away a hardspace, which they had in this case :) Both links work, and I'm unclear why you think I 'randomly' decided to claim he worked part-time at a Fish & Chip store part-time, then was 'later' proven correct. Check the talk page, I mentioned a good half-dozen sources for his employment. May I suggest that if you still have issues with wanting to claim he was 'unemployed' that you take them to his talk page, rather than my own plz. Much thanks, Sherurcij 07:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Both links work for me. SlimVirgin, does your vote hinge on whether "...sometimes helped out in his father's fish and chip shop" means unemployed or partially-employed? We have an editor who researches his topics thoroughly, provides ample (if ambiguous) sources for his claims, and goes out of his way to invite his biggest adversaries to vote on his RfA. The question is, do you trust this guy with admin responsibilities? Please reconsider; your opinion is important to me, and to many others. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Owen, the links work now, but they didn't, and it might be worth noting here that he didn't format them properly the first time he entered them, which is more of the same (as I see it) carelessness I found at Shehzad Tanweer. Also, the links don't actually bear out what he's saying, and I take strong issue with your claim that he researches his topics thoroughly. My experience of him is quite the reverse. I'm going to continue my response in the comments section below. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Both links work for me. SlimVirgin, does your vote hinge on whether "...sometimes helped out in his father's fish and chip shop" means unemployed or partially-employed? We have an editor who researches his topics thoroughly, provides ample (if ambiguous) sources for his claims, and goes out of his way to invite his biggest adversaries to vote on his RfA. The question is, do you trust this guy with admin responsibilities? Please reconsider; your opinion is important to me, and to many others. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Rather than claim an apparently-valid link is "fake" or "doesn't work", it's sometimes best to see if codes have stripped away a hardspace, which they had in this case :) Both links work, and I'm unclear why you think I 'randomly' decided to claim he worked part-time at a Fish & Chip store part-time, then was 'later' proven correct. Check the talk page, I mentioned a good half-dozen sources for his employment. May I suggest that if you still have issues with wanting to claim he was 'unemployed' that you take them to his talk page, rather than my own plz. Much thanks, Sherurcij 07:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- But here we go again. Neither of your links works. You were arguing this before you ever even claimed to have found a source, Sherurcij. He didn't have a job, and you reverted and reverted to prevent anyone from saying that in the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Understandable, I rather assumed you would oppose when I invited you here, but hoped at least to have some criticism against me from somebody who's engaged me 'at close quarters' before. To defend the unemployed versus part-time work argument however, I'll point out that I sourced both the Washington Post and Daily Mail as stating that he held a part-time job at the fish & chip shop. Anyways, not to be combative, just because I'd like both of us to be able to show sources for our claims Sherurcij 06:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for being honest, but I don't see that anything has changed. You're still insisting, for example, that he wasn't unemployed beyond he helped out occasionally in his father's fish and chip shop. But all the sources reported that he was "unemployed" or "effectively unemployed," [9] and in fact the high levels of unemployment in that area are seen as partly responsible for the appeal of radical Islam to young men who may feel they have limited prospects, so to ignore what the sources were saying about that was odd, in my view. I'll stick with my oppose vote. Sorry. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because I'm wordy, reply is behind a cutline Sherurcij 05:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Modest oppose. While I have not slogged through your differences over content, SlimVirgin's comment on images led me to check yours: while tagging has improved since your arguments in July you are slipping too much fair use in here, particularly from news organizations. While I'm willing to be corrected, you can't just upload from Reuters and call it fair use--their policy is quite clearly all rights reserved. This would normally lead me to neutral, but weak edit summaries and a rather inadequate reply re. "shut the fuck up" lead me to oppose. Marskell 10:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per Marskell and SV's points. FeloniousMonk 00:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose - concerned about actions at Shehzad Tanweer, and responses regarding those actions, and some concerns about images as well. Jayjg (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per SlimVirgin's posts above and below. I applaud the stated "NPOV-addict" goal, but am dismayed at the insulting/amusing edit summaries. Turnstep 02:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose Today he removed POV tags from two articles [10] [11], marking his edits as minor and using the deceptive edit summary "updating template/cat". He's also made such edits without comment [12] [13][14] [15] [16] [17] This is completely unacceptable behavior and shows complete disregard for Wikipedia policy. Carbonite | Talk 13:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I've also found numerous incidents of extreme incivility, such as edit summaries telling other editors "You vandalize a topic on my list, I'm going to do nasty things to your sister with a colander and some shredded cheese." [18], "Vandalize a topic again, I'll bite your ass" [19] "vandalize my topic again, I shall hunt you down" [20] "rvt - don't fuck with mai pages or I smack yo skinny ass up homeboy!" [21] "This is a stub, not a speedy delete, don't make me kick your ass" [22] Carbonite | Talk 15:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I believe you misunderstand the edits, they are the result of discussion on Category:NPOV disputes that with over 1000 articles, the category should have some subcategories. All I did was go through the article, and sub-categorize them to either Category:Political NPOV disputes, Category:Religious NPOV disputes and the (somewhat poorly named) Conflict NPOV disputes (about wars, battles, etc). Where I "didn't use edit summaries" would simply be accidental, or where I got the annoying "Wikimedia Foundation Error" page, so had to refresh/backspace to get it to work, a quick look at User Contribs should show that I (hopefully) used edit summaries on most of the changes. Sherurcij 13:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- You removed dispute tags from about a dozen articles. A discussion on a category talk page does not result in a policy to remove the tags. It's essential to warn readers that the information in the article is disputed and/or may be factually inaccurate. Carbonite | Talk 13:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, I replaced dispute tags from several dozen articles with an appropriate sub-categorization so that they would appear under Category:Religious NPOV disputes instead of the bulging over-full Category:NPOV disputes. The intention, as mentioned on relevant talk pages, if you'd please be so kind as to look, is to create new templates/categories based on these modifiers, so there is less confusion about why a particular article is contentious. Unfortunately, things must be done over time, and I apologize that I can't simultaneously clean out a category of 1000 articles, create new categories, and create new templates, all within 10 seconds...it does take a bit of time. There is absolutely no vandalism involved whatsoever, merely tidying up a category which has been requested to please be sub-categorized. Sherurcij 13:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Removing dispute tags from multiple articles is borderline vandalism. I know your intent was good, but the result was the readers would have no warning about POV or factually accuracy issues. The whole point of the tags is that they make it blantantly obvious to the reader that the article is in dispute. Replacing a dispute tag with a category is not appropriate at all. If you'd like to add the category and keep the tag, I don't see a problem with that. This is basic Wikipedia policy here (NPOV) and I'm rather puzzled that you're actually arguing that you were in the right. Carbonite | Talk 13:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- See discussion below, no need for two seperate threads of discussion. Sherurcij
- Removing dispute tags from multiple articles is borderline vandalism. I know your intent was good, but the result was the readers would have no warning about POV or factually accuracy issues. The whole point of the tags is that they make it blantantly obvious to the reader that the article is in dispute. Replacing a dispute tag with a category is not appropriate at all. If you'd like to add the category and keep the tag, I don't see a problem with that. This is basic Wikipedia policy here (NPOV) and I'm rather puzzled that you're actually arguing that you were in the right. Carbonite | Talk 13:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, I replaced dispute tags from several dozen articles with an appropriate sub-categorization so that they would appear under Category:Religious NPOV disputes instead of the bulging over-full Category:NPOV disputes. The intention, as mentioned on relevant talk pages, if you'd please be so kind as to look, is to create new templates/categories based on these modifiers, so there is less confusion about why a particular article is contentious. Unfortunately, things must be done over time, and I apologize that I can't simultaneously clean out a category of 1000 articles, create new categories, and create new templates, all within 10 seconds...it does take a bit of time. There is absolutely no vandalism involved whatsoever, merely tidying up a category which has been requested to please be sub-categorized. Sherurcij 13:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- You removed dispute tags from about a dozen articles. A discussion on a category talk page does not result in a policy to remove the tags. It's essential to warn readers that the information in the article is disputed and/or may be factually inaccurate. Carbonite | Talk 13:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am also unclear why it is 'deceptive' to use the edit summary of "replacing template/cat" when that's exactly what I'm doing, and it's my understanding that cat changes (+cat, -cat, etc) are always minor...so I'm afraid I really don't understand your problem with marking "minor, replacing template/cat" ? Sherurcij 13:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- That edit summary does not imply in any way that you removed a dispute tag from the article. That is far from a minor change. Minor changes are usually spelling corrections or fixing a broken link. Also, dispute tags should not be removed without discussing on the article's talk page. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- replacing template/cat implies exactly what I'm doing, I'm replacing one of the template/category tags with another, which as I said, is typically marked as a minor change, since major changes are to the bulk of information in the article. With 1000 articles in Category:NPOV disputes, it's not fair or efficient to expect 1000 different talk pages to say "Would you mind if we move this from "NPOV dispute" to "Religious/Political NPOV dispute"? Again, the tags weren't removed, they are being replaced with more specific tags as requested by others on the talk page because the category is overfull. By putting them into a new category such as Category:Religious NPOV disputes, it makes it much easier to then go to each of the articles and add a ((religiousNPOV)) tag to them Sherurcij 14:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, please answer this: After your edits, did dispute tags exist on the articles? Yes or no? If no, then your edits removed legitimate tags and removed an essential warning to readers. Carbonite | Talk 14:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- See "I can't completely fix WP in 10 seconds", I already explained to you that I am making new dispute tags that are more specific to tag onto the articles that were listed under the new Category:Religious NPOV disputes, Category:Political NPOV disputes and such, before you went and mass-reverted my two hours of work, rather than actually help improve anything. Sherurcij 14:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- No one expects you to fix Wikipedia in 10 seconds. That's simply a straw-man argument. If you're making new tags, that's great, although I do recommend reaching a consensus to use the new ones instead of just replacing the current ones. However, you didn't replace the dispute tags, you removed them. That you may replace them sometime in the future is a rather absurd argument. Why the rush to "replace" the tags before you had a replacement ready? You didn't improve the articles by removing the tags, you eliminated a vital warning to readers. Listen, I realize you has good intentions, but you went about it in the wrong way. Carbonite | Talk 14:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because if all the "religiously based NPOV articles" are in a single category, then it becomes a very simple matter to have a ((religionpov)) tag added to the top of each of them - a script can't distinguish between the 1000 diferent articles in "NPOV disputes" however. Even still, rather than go back and re-add a ((pov)) tag to the articles you needed one within the next 6 hours - instead you went and undid all the work of categorizing articles, simply putting them all back into Category:NPOV disputes. Sherurcij
- No one expects you to fix Wikipedia in 10 seconds. That's simply a straw-man argument. If you're making new tags, that's great, although I do recommend reaching a consensus to use the new ones instead of just replacing the current ones. However, you didn't replace the dispute tags, you removed them. That you may replace them sometime in the future is a rather absurd argument. Why the rush to "replace" the tags before you had a replacement ready? You didn't improve the articles by removing the tags, you eliminated a vital warning to readers. Listen, I realize you has good intentions, but you went about it in the wrong way. Carbonite | Talk 14:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- See "I can't completely fix WP in 10 seconds", I already explained to you that I am making new dispute tags that are more specific to tag onto the articles that were listed under the new Category:Religious NPOV disputes, Category:Political NPOV disputes and such, before you went and mass-reverted my two hours of work, rather than actually help improve anything. Sherurcij 14:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- OK, please answer this: After your edits, did dispute tags exist on the articles? Yes or no? If no, then your edits removed legitimate tags and removed an essential warning to readers. Carbonite | Talk 14:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- replacing template/cat implies exactly what I'm doing, I'm replacing one of the template/category tags with another, which as I said, is typically marked as a minor change, since major changes are to the bulk of information in the article. With 1000 articles in Category:NPOV disputes, it's not fair or efficient to expect 1000 different talk pages to say "Would you mind if we move this from "NPOV dispute" to "Religious/Political NPOV dispute"? Again, the tags weren't removed, they are being replaced with more specific tags as requested by others on the talk page because the category is overfull. By putting them into a new category such as Category:Religious NPOV disputes, it makes it much easier to then go to each of the articles and add a ((religiousNPOV)) tag to them Sherurcij 14:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- That edit summary does not imply in any way that you removed a dispute tag from the article. That is far from a minor change. Minor changes are usually spelling corrections or fixing a broken link. Also, dispute tags should not be removed without discussing on the article's talk page. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose; has called my merge of George Alexander (US Army soldier) into 2003 invasion of Iraq media coverage vandalism. --SPUI (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Son of a...okay, first off, this isn't a question of whether or not you like me, it's whether or not I should have admin tools to block vandals. Coming here as "revenge" a minute after I warned you about vandalism is just blah. Anyways, more importantly, your merge is vandalism, and you've done it 9 times already, each time chided and reverted by another Wikipedian (twice by myself). I have also pointed you to the relevant talk page where your only contribution to multiple Wikipedians telling you to stop vandalizing the article is "Consensus" is not needed to do something that makes sense. --SPUI. I suggest if you have issues with that article, you consult the very handy guides I provided you on your talk page quite politely, or else try to formulate arguments on the talk page, instead of dismissing multiple people asking you to stop vandalizing the same article 9 times. Sherurcij 08:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Admins can block people for vandalism. Calling that merge vandalism is not a good thing for an admin to do. --SPUI (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- A merge I would naturally assume was good faith, doing it 9 times when you were already warned not to, is vandalism. Sherurcij 11:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Admins can block people for vandalism. Calling that merge vandalism is not a good thing for an admin to do. --SPUI (talk) 11:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Son of a...okay, first off, this isn't a question of whether or not you like me, it's whether or not I should have admin tools to block vandals. Coming here as "revenge" a minute after I warned you about vandalism is just blah. Anyways, more importantly, your merge is vandalism, and you've done it 9 times already, each time chided and reverted by another Wikipedian (twice by myself). I have also pointed you to the relevant talk page where your only contribution to multiple Wikipedians telling you to stop vandalizing the article is "Consensus" is not needed to do something that makes sense. --SPUI. I suggest if you have issues with that article, you consult the very handy guides I provided you on your talk page quite politely, or else try to formulate arguments on the talk page, instead of dismissing multiple people asking you to stop vandalizing the same article 9 times. Sherurcij 08:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose at least this time around, per Slim and Carbonite... To quote from the RfA page, Admins have no special authority on Wikipedia, but are held to high standards, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Admins should be courteous and should exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others. Nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to see whether they have these qualities. I am one of those who holds self-nominations to a somewhat higher standard, but in this case I would've had to have voted "oppose" even if it weren't a self-nom... TomerTALK 01:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Recently, for some odd reason, Sherurcij actually came onto my user discussion page and "warned" me to "watch my step" because in his view I was being too "POV" in an article (see "...watch your step a bit..." at User talk:IZAK#Kadima). He must learn to tone down his attitude/s before being granted more "powers" whereby, I can just see it, he would run around and warn unsuspecting Wikipedians to "watch your step...or else..." This is not what Wikipedia needs right now. IZAK 06:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's clear I'll lose the RfA at the point, so c'est la vie...but I'm curious...I don't see my comment on your page as anything other than polite, I quite clearly complimented your hard work, and then urged you to try and watch yourself because you were talking about "Sharon's skill..." and similar POV terms in an article about his new political faction. You were POV, just like SPUI was vandalism. Sherurcij 10:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sherurij: Again I ask you: What is "POV" about saying that Sharon has a "skill" in building political parties and coalitions? It happens to be a true and accurate description and statement of fact. All your reaction tells me is that you have great difficulty with understanding the meaning of plain words (or is it all a show?) I have no idea what your reference to "SPUI was vandalism" has to do with me? I know nothing about what you are talking about. But, my impression of your word usage here is that by writing a dubiously cunning sentence that reads: "You were POV, just like SPUI was vandalism" you are not-so-subtly attempting to "smear" me by association so that I am somehow in the same "orbit" as a "vandal" in your POV, which I strongly resent. Then again, what can one expect from someone who starts a sentence (on a page where you requesting adminship yet!) as you wrote above: "Son of a..." ? What emerges from your reactions is that you have a lot of negativity that lurks no-so-far beneath the surface and that you enjoy trying to "run circles" around people by playing time-wasting "word games" that only serves to harm the creative process needed in writing articles that most people, except you, will find readable and NPOV most of the time. Please do not waste my time with twisted responses, I see through them, and I don't appreciate it. IZAK 11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I know you don't appreciate it, but those who least appreciate criticism are usually those who need it the most. :) To address your first question, the issue of skill is always POV, should I say that Charles Whitman showed great skill with a sniper rifle? No, perhaps he was lucky, perhaps it was fate, perhaps it was skill, whatever it was, it's not up for me to report in a WP article, what is for me to report is what he did. If I want to read IZAK's opinions on Ariel Sharon, I will be certain to bookmark your blog...but please don't consider articles (especially those linked off the news header) as your personal soapbox for how much you love a guy. As per mentioning that were just as much POV as SPUI was a vandal, it was grouping you both as people who disliked the fact I confronted you about something, so came to my RfA - in a perfect world, RfAs would be simply run by people who hadn't interacted with you, since they can show the most objectivity. It's somewhat hard to see an oppose vote labelled Sherurcij actually came onto my user discussion page and "warned" me to "watch my step" because in his view I was being too "POV" in an article as anything other than subjective, based on the fact you didn't like me pointing out POV in your own writing. Read what I've written on this page, and you'll see that I don't consider vandals and POV-pushers the same at all, they are very different, and need to be dealt with very different. Vandals should be blocked after a warning, POV-pushers should simply be reasoned with and made aware of their own bias. (We all have bias, and 99% of us let it show in our writing, yours was just more blatant than many). As per starting a sentence on a non-article page with "son of a..." to denote frustration...I'm unclear how that shows that I'm a biased anti-semite out to get you? It's me expressing frustration, simple as that. In summary, what you call "time-wasting word games" are what stands between calling Osama bin Laden a "hero" and a "murdering dog", sure, disputing the terms is just "time-wasting word games", but it needs to be done because an encyclopedia should not show POV. Sherurcij 11:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Look here, I never called you an anti-semite, neither did I allude to it, but if that's how you think you should be viewed then it clears things up a lot don't you think? And now for my last comment to you... YAAAAAAWWWWWWWWN !!! IZAK 11:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sherurcij may be rather untactful and even offensive, but that it clears things up a lot personal attack is totally out of line, IZAK. El_C 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- El_C: Please explain how Sherur's "untactful and even offensive" violent verbal attacks are not a personal attack (have you actually read all of Sherur's brutal comments against people here?), but acknowledging someone's open and repeated self-admission of possible anti-semitism is a problem in any way? He keeps repeating it about himself, so what should I think? What don't I get here? IZAK 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Erm...where are these so-called self-admissions of being anti-semitic? Please don't lie, while lies are often enough to fool the easily-led-astray in the population, it's considered a very slippery slope. *rolls eyes* So, in summary, just because somebody thinks you're adding POV in your edits, doesn't mean they hate Sharon, the Jews or anything else...it means they think you're adding POV to an encyclopaedia. Sherurcij 12:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Look, above you say: "...I'm unclear how that shows that I'm a biased anti-semite out to get you?". Which leaves me wondering... what am I to make of that highly-charged aside? Again, it shows how loosely you manage your own dangerous words, either by design or through carelessnes, and then try to argue against what you yourself wrote. This is truly absurd of you to be arguing this way. IZAK 12:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- El_C: Please explain how Sherur's "untactful and even offensive" violent verbal attacks are not a personal attack (have you actually read all of Sherur's brutal comments against people here?), but acknowledging someone's open and repeated self-admission of possible anti-semitism is a problem in any way? He keeps repeating it about himself, so what should I think? What don't I get here? IZAK 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- (Aimed at IZAK, not El_C)Sorry, your exact quote is that you "gather that (I) most probably do" "hate Sharon", and am "lost in (my) own prejudice" if I suggest that that your gushing is somehow POV. So yes, it would seem that you are trying to imply that I must be anti-semitic, or at least anti-Sharon to consider some of your wording POV, in an attempt to dismiss the fact. In fact, as I mentioned on your talk page at the time, I'm personally quite a fan of Sharon, and spent more than an hour yesterday in conversation with a friend about Sharon...but that's personal conversation, where POV is allowed and encouraged, not a WP article. Also, I would like to point out to you, since the edit-mixup thing...it's considered poor form to actually go back and edit your previous comments to me, after I've already replied to them - making it seem like I was replying to a slightly different comment you'd made. Sherurcij 11:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sherurcij may be rather untactful and even offensive, but that it clears things up a lot personal attack is totally out of line, IZAK. El_C 11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Guess the first one was too low, so here goes again: YYAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNN !!!!!! IZAK 11:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think you'd come off more mature if you put your fingers in your ears and shouted "I'M NOT LISTENING, CAN'T HEAR YOU, NYAH, NYAH, NYAH", just fyi :) Sherurcij 11:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I, for one, do find Sharon & his views & his tactics, and so on, highly offensive and questionable, but that is entirely an aside. IZAK, please keep WP:CIV in mind. Sherurcij, IZAK is allowed to modify his comments as he sees fit. If you find the changes problematic, note it in a diff, but do not modify any actual text within his comment space. El_C 12:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think you'd come off more mature if you put your fingers in your ears and shouted "I'M NOT LISTENING, CAN'T HEAR YOU, NYAH, NYAH, NYAH", just fyi :) Sherurcij 11:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you all. And now, truly, Good nite! IZAK 12:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sherurij: Again I ask you: What is "POV" about saying that Sharon has a "skill" in building political parties and coalitions? It happens to be a true and accurate description and statement of fact. All your reaction tells me is that you have great difficulty with understanding the meaning of plain words (or is it all a show?) I have no idea what your reference to "SPUI was vandalism" has to do with me? I know nothing about what you are talking about. But, my impression of your word usage here is that by writing a dubiously cunning sentence that reads: "You were POV, just like SPUI was vandalism" you are not-so-subtly attempting to "smear" me by association so that I am somehow in the same "orbit" as a "vandal" in your POV, which I strongly resent. Then again, what can one expect from someone who starts a sentence (on a page where you requesting adminship yet!) as you wrote above: "Son of a..." ? What emerges from your reactions is that you have a lot of negativity that lurks no-so-far beneath the surface and that you enjoy trying to "run circles" around people by playing time-wasting "word games" that only serves to harm the creative process needed in writing articles that most people, except you, will find readable and NPOV most of the time. Please do not waste my time with twisted responses, I see through them, and I don't appreciate it. IZAK 11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's clear I'll lose the RfA at the point, so c'est la vie...but I'm curious...I don't see my comment on your page as anything other than polite, I quite clearly complimented your hard work, and then urged you to try and watch yourself because you were talking about "Sharon's skill..." and similar POV terms in an article about his new political faction. You were POV, just like SPUI was vandalism. Sherurcij 10:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Sitting on the fence for now - but I must commend him for a very honest self-nomination. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Your ending comment "please shut the fuck up" made here hopefully is tongue in cheek. MONGO 19:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)- "Tongue-in-cheek" has always been a bit of a mystery to me, I've never quite been able to decipher its exact meaning, and I think that may simply be because different social circles use it to mean anything from equal to sarcasm, to witty, to ironic...so I won't swear on tongue-in-cheek, but the general context is supposed to be similar to Gene Wilder's infamous I said Good Day! from the original (non-crappy) Charlie & the Chocolate Factory film. I figure that since it's on my talk page...and I'm clearly not engaged in an overly intelligent debate, I have a bit of leeway with what is essentially trolling. Sherurcij 01:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'll second the comments of the perceptive Haukur, and add that -- if your friends really know so little about the world (per your userpage) -- you should get more friends, especially among WPians, who are stuffed with knowledge! :) Xoloz 19:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral, I don't know. Fahrenheit Royale 17:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. I see too much conflict here for me to vote one way or the other. I applaud your honesty, but the issues raised here and now are too great for me to actually side with Support until such time as I see them as not as important as they are now. I definitely urge you, should this RfA fail, to reapply in the near future. Best of luck! --Martin Osterman 03:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral Because all the cool kids are in Switzerland. Too much doubt here either way. Karmafist 00:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Unless my recent world history is out of whack, didn't Switzerland buckle and join the UN? Sherurcij 00:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, they'll always be neutral in my heart...Karmafist 05:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Unless my recent world history is out of whack, didn't Switzerland buckle and join the UN? Sherurcij 00:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- I won't be voting, since I don't recall meeting you before this RFA, but I want to echo Haukurth's appreciation for your honesty in your self-nomination, and furthermore for your response to question It seems many admin candidates pledge that, if successful, they'll daily clear out WP:AFD, WP:CP, and WP:RPP, and go on recent-change patrol besides. I do want to point out, however, that the edit summaries you mention above in response to vandals are a mistake, though perhaps not for the reasons you think: I'm quite certain we've staved off unimaginable numbers of trolls who wander away disappointed when the only response to their beautiful defamatory edits to George W. Bush is "rv/v" and maybe "{{test1}}". —Cryptic (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I occasionally end up voting at AfDs (VfDs?), but typically only when an article I'm watching has been nominated, then I'll glance down the day's list and vote on a few more I feel strongly about. As per your comments on revert messages, you might be right..I shall have to retire to my chambers as per Yoda and dwell on this Sherurcij 01:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Owen, in response to your query about Sherurcij's editing of Shehzad Tanweer, if you look at the sources he's offered above, one says "While pursuing his studies, Tanweer worked part time at his family's restaurant and kept busy with other jobs." [23] But Tanweer wasn't pursuing his studies when the bombing occurred, unless we're counting his weeks-long trip to Pakistan as part of his studies, in which case he definitely wasn't working in his father's shop then either. The second source says: "Tanweer, who sometimes helped out in his father's fish and chip shop ..." [24] "Sometimes helping out" isn't what's meant by having a job. Other sources clearly stated he was unemployed, but Sherurcij didn't want him to be and therefore resisted it, and this is what I found in general. He inserted his POV then looked around for sources to support him after the fact, rather than the other way round; and even without sources, pressed ahead with whatever he personally wanted the article to say. So even when Scotland Yard had confirmed Tanweer was dead, Sherurcij still wrote his "suspected death," which was odd English, as well as ignoring what the authoritative sources said. This shows in my view he has a poor understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and doesn't know how to use sources. He also reverted using misleading or no edit summaries; for example, 02:38 July 18: he wrote "adding image," when in fact it was a revert; 03:49 July 18: a revert hidden among a bunch of minor edits to make it more awkward to undo, with no edit summary; 18:55 July 23: a revert of the number of dead in the intro, with no edit summary.
- It wasn't only these points, or any other single issue, that caused me to oppose. It was the conjunction of factual errors; arguing about issues he seemed to know nothing about; uploading images with no tagging or sourcing; ignoring requests to find the sources so that other editors could sort out the image pages; reverting and arguing against several editors; inserting grammatical and spelling errors; a failure to understand narrative flow; either no edit summaries or misleading ones; and I have to say a general lack of maturity. I found him to be one of the most infuriating editors I've come across. I also want to add that I don't oppose adminships that often, and I very rarely add information to nomination pages to draw others' attention to negative aspects of a candidate; in fact, I can think of only two other occasions I've done this in a year of editing. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah right. It's all to do with politics for you. Our guy tried to get a bit of the opposite POV and you jumped on him. Now you oppose his POV. The article on Shehzad Tanweer is a disgrace to Wikipedia ... Let the man be an admin. There's worse. Grace Note 14:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is hardly what I would characterize as a "glowing endorsement"... TomerTALK 05:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, let us all pretend that endorsement was never made ;) Sherurcij 12:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- This is hardly what I would characterize as a "glowing endorsement"... TomerTALK 05:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah right. It's all to do with politics for you. Our guy tried to get a bit of the opposite POV and you jumped on him. Now you oppose his POV. The article on Shehzad Tanweer is a disgrace to Wikipedia ... Let the man be an admin. There's worse. Grace Note 14:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. Really mostly just blocking vandals in all honesty, although I'm also often browsing through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, usually looking for potential articles to save and turn into stubs or better, but would also appreciate the ability to clean up the category by deleting the ones that are clear garbage/vandalism/usertests Sherurcij
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. The most pleasing articles are always the ones where I learn something fascinating and new, and hopefully manage to pass that knowledge onto a few more people in the world who may idly google a name they see referenced in a book or report at some time. Using that sort of criteria, I'd have to say that Patrick Arguello holds a special place in my heart since it was my first major 'project' that I spent 3-4 days working on. As I mentioned before though, my personal 'favourites' would have to be the 9/11 hijackers, of which I've edited I'm sure all of them, but contributed the bulk of the article, tidy, upkeep and such on 5 currently (the next one I do is going to be Ziad Jarrah which I've recently started).Sherurcij
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. The example that comes to mind would have to be a spat over the article about London tube bomber Shehzad Tanweer this past July, mostly with User:SlimVirgin - in the end I think the debate helped the article become better, and we got a vague sort of compromise worked out. (Probably chiefly because we were able to agree on several definite key things to keep/add/delete from other users). I'd like to think of that example as my 'learning experience' with conflict on Wikipedia. As for stress from other users, nope, I recognise this is the Internet, and there will always be people who think "Michael Moore is fat" or "George Bush is a Nazi" is a valid rebuttal to an argument, but hey, there are too many fools in the world to let oneself worry about them Sherurcij
- 4 You have clearly been involved in disputes in the past, with admins. At the time, you were essentially "powerless". What effect, honestly, do you imagine being on a level-power "playing field" will have on your willingess and ability to work toward and achieve compromise with other users, admins and non-admins? TShilo12 08:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Only the one that I can ever recall, which I'll point out I mentioned directly, then I went to SlimVirgin's talkpage and asked her to come here to offer an honest opinion...*shrugs* Anyways, I honestly don't think the fact she was an admin factored into at all, and whether or not I'm an admin in the future wouldn't either. It's a meaningless title in my mind, that just denotes this person is trusted with the ability to clean up the place a bit more, it has no weight in an argument and shouldn't be brought to bear as such (not that I'm saying SV did, she never did). Sherurcij 09:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Eh, just a closing rant Just thought I'd comment myself, on the off-chance one or two people actually read this far down anyhow. What amazes me is how several of the people opposing me are people that I've warned for vandalism, or for 'fairly blatant pov' in a Current Events article gushing about Ariel Sharon's skill, and how he's the best politician yet. Yet when I fairly politely just drop a message on their talk page, they say I must be an anti-semite, or hate Sharon, to possibly consider their language POV. Then when I say that "Sharon's skill..." is as POV as if somebody else said "Sharon's failing...", another WPian warns me that these are the sort of comments you should try to avoid between now and the next time you're up for RfA. So I'm curious, if we're not supposed to politely correct bias, and explain our rationale...what are we supposed to do? It's an insane discussion on that talk page, because his excuse for POV is best paraphrased as "It's not POV, Sharon really is that awesome!"
Vandals get blocked, POV-pushers merely get reasoned with, and asked to tone down any rhetoric or POV they're inserting into articles...saying "Sherurcij will just ban people who he thinks are POV" is ridiculous fearmongering - I've never threatened to ban anybody, and the only people I've ever requested be blocked are those who blank out articles and put "PENIS!" or something equally asinine in their stead. You deal with vandals by blocking them, but POV-pushers have no reason to be blocked, they should merely be made aware of the fact that others can see a POV in their writing, and they should be more careful in the future to be careful about wordchoices and such.
Then I've got Carbonite voting against me because he feels my 2 hours spent cleaning up a category that was requested to be cleaned up, infringed on his territory, and rather than re-add template tags, he just mass-reverts. Well that's a hell of a lot of motivation to go bust my ass for 2 hours cleaning up a category, so that somebody can run a bot to undo my work, then tell me to do it over again. Then to top it off, a complaint that the edit summary "replacing template/category" doesn't give any indication I'm replacing a template or category...*shakes head*
Finally to top it off, a vandal who's shown extreme bias, blanking an article 9 times after being told not to, complaining because again, I left him a polite and informative talkpage note showing him where to take his complaints about an article he felt "wasn't worthy", instead of just vandalizing it.
I'm not poor at handling criticism, Tomer's oppose about the "official face" is well-deserved, and like I said in my nomination, likely the most fitting complaint. Somebody who leaves 'borderline' revert messages to clearcut vandalism is helping WP, but likely too 'goofy' or even 'over the top' to actually be considered official. (At the same time, it was Tomer who told me to refrain from pointing out IZAK's fiercely "But Sharon really is that awesome, so the article should say so!" bias...so I admit I'm a tad confused by him)
In the end, sure, somebody who goes around pointing out POV (politely!) is likely to gain a bit of opposition from people who want to think that the only POV in the world is on the side they're not...they're not POV, they're just saying how awesome their side is because the other side says they suck...well not all POV is negative-based, from the fanworld, the two terms are "bashing" and "gushing". Saying "Adolf Hitler had some great ideas" is POV, but so is saying "Adolf Hitler had some lousy ideas", it's our job to inform people about the encyclopaedic content, a hopefully in-depth record of what happened, not an in-depth view. Save your personal opinions for your blogs. Sherurcij 11:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hey buddy, don't lie, I never said Sharon is "that awesome" or anything like that. And, I never called you an anti-Semite! You are going too far in your path of falsification. Alas! You do not have a clue what "POV" vs. "NPOV" on Wikipedia means. I advise you to stop your lies before the matter get's out of hand. IZAK 11:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually you did, the direct quote is that you refrained from using the words "fantastic / wonderful / outstanding / amazing / excellent / superior", and therefore couldn't possibly be POV since you didn't apply those descriptions in the article. You then went on to say that Sharon has great skill, he has done what no other leader has ever managed to do, etc, etc...all quite POV. Also, unfortunately, I do know what "POV vs NPOV" means on Wikipedia, I believe I already summarized that most WPians seem to believe it means "Only the other side has bias!" - as noted in the fact that I equally remove bias from articles about Jews, Nazis, Saudis, Britons and Americans though, I like to hope that I'm disproving that statement, all sides have bias...and dare I say it, you've proven that fact. :) Sherurcij 12:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh what a waste of good time this is! Yes, on the dicussion page I said that I did not use POV words, to make things clear to you to prove to you that I know the difference between using useless POV "complimentary words" and writing an accurate NPOV description and explanation which are perfectly legitimate empirical tools. I was not "endorsing" Sharon I was trying to provide accurate and informative information for an article that was basically not more than a stub when I saw it first. I stated he had a "skill" in building Israeli unity governments and coalitions (your analogy above to a Texas madman's so-called "skill" in murdering people is, again, an unfortunate example, of how you like to muddy the waters, and create "guilt by association" through poor use of words and twisted logic...by placing an Israeli prime minister in the same "verbal category" as a Texas murderer. Your methods of operation seem very evident as the clock ticks on...) You do not seem to know all that much about Israeli politics, but there are many facts that are true about Sharon. He built the Likud, that is a fact. He built many governing coalitions, that is a fact, and it is due due to his political "skill" that he did it. That's all I said. It is disengenious of you to quote back to me what I cited as words I did not use, as if they were examples of something I did do. This is what we call chutzpa in Yiddish! Why do you want to be an admin in any case? You seem to be busy enough writing up all your POV's without needing to be an admin here. IZAK 12:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually you did, the direct quote is that you refrained from using the words "fantastic / wonderful / outstanding / amazing / excellent / superior", and therefore couldn't possibly be POV since you didn't apply those descriptions in the article. You then went on to say that Sharon has great skill, he has done what no other leader has ever managed to do, etc, etc...all quite POV. Also, unfortunately, I do know what "POV vs NPOV" means on Wikipedia, I believe I already summarized that most WPians seem to believe it means "Only the other side has bias!" - as noted in the fact that I equally remove bias from articles about Jews, Nazis, Saudis, Britons and Americans though, I like to hope that I'm disproving that statement, all sides have bias...and dare I say it, you've proven that fact. :) Sherurcij 12:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- He built the Likud, that is a fact. He built many governing coalitions, that is a fact, and it is due due to his political "skill" - two of those are facts, one is an opinion. As per "why do I want to be an admin in any case?", I'd suggest in the future you at least read RfAs before voting on them based on personal grudges. I actually made it really clear why I wanted it in the very first sentence on the page Sherurcij 12:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, it is not an "opinion" it is a DESCRIPTION and perhaps also an EXPLANATION...and, we are talking about one little word: "skill", which gets you all hysterical, as if that was some sort of "wondrous" POV. Beats me Bob! Wikipedia is not just an army-type boring mind-numbing execise in torture "roll-call" of reading "inventories". NPOV words can be used to describe and explain the facts, and that is perfectly legitimate. P.S. I read what you wrote in your intro to the RfA, but all I could see was that you could not resist putting in crummy and insulting edit summaries, so why should anyone vote for you? IZAK 13:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can easily resist, I choose not to - but I do mention it in my RfA, yes. I'm not asking you to list inventories, I'm asking you not to discuss Sharon's "skills" as this is not a Résumé, just as I would tell somebody not to discuss George Bush's "failures". You may think that Sharon is a great political mind who has managed to do what decades of Israeli leaders were not...that's fine, keep it to your blog, not an article on him. "Bob has blue eyes" is an NPOV description. "Bob is very skilled, and better than other people" is not Sherurcij 13:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I do not write or edit articles to "discuss" anything, maybe you do, I don't, I leave that for discussion pages or worse...like here. I have been writing academic articles for a long time now, and I was taught that description/s and explanation/s are always needed, especially if the reader is not that familiar (i.e. he is an ignoramus) about the subject-matter (in this case Israeli politics) in the first place. If Bob was the prime minister of Israel and he had managed to build several powerful political alliances in spite of great odds against such a thing happening (he succeeded where others had failed) then I would perforce have to describe him as having "skills" in that regard (an much more as needed), and that would be a perfectly legitimate NPOV. If Bob was a just some unknown student pontificating about life, yes indeed, I would tell Bob to blog away, and have fun because what he does makes no difference to the world right now, but what a prime minister of an important country does or does not do and achieves must be part of an article about him, and no it's not like a resume, because only Bob the student would think in those terms. IZAK 13:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Whether or not somebody is famous does not affect whether a statement about their skills is POV or not. Again, discuss this on Sharon's talk page if you want, it's really not related to my RfA, which you've already said you didn't even read before opposing :) Sherurcij 13:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (42/0/0) ended 5:45 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Hiding (talk · contribs) – I have encountered Hiding at WP:CFD and was surprised to find he wasn't an admin. He has been a Wikipedian for 7 months, totalling a well distributed 4388 edits in that time. Judging from his contribs he will make good use of the various tools, and judging from his talk page he is more than calm and rational enough to handle the extra few buttons. Martin 20:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I am honoured to accept, and thank you for the very kind words, Martin.
Support
- Strong Support. Are we all really sure he isn't one?... I'm truly shocked! Xoloz 08:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support no prob with Hiding, have seen about the place doing good work. Alf melmac 09:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. KHM03 09:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 10:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ye Ghods! I coulda sworn he was... give Hiding the power to block (and unblock, delete, and generally clean up)! Grutness...wha? 10:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support! Kirill Lokshin 11:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support per Xoloz. --Celestianpower háblame 11:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. A very good contributor, this is overdue. Rje 11:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Simply Support Renata3 13:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nom.Gator (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nom. KillerChihuahua 13:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nom. - SoM 14:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Hiding's work on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics has been great. --DDG 16:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support great user. Grue 16:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per Renata3.--Shreshth91 16:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Strong work in categories, etc.MONGO 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Looking good! The Minister of War 22:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- While it seems I rarely agree with Hiding on most issues, it's beem a pleasure working with him. Radiant_>|< 23:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, sure - support. BD2412 T 23:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I remember when Rick Block ran for adminship, and I was surprised he wasn't one. Now Hiding is running, and I continue being surprised. I really should get around to reading WP:LA. Redwolf24 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Very strong support. Blackcap | talk 01:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support--Duk 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Give Hiding the power to block. Titoxd(?!?) 18:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Absolute support very good editor and would make great admin. «»Who?¿?meta 02:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, and no, we're not related. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, block. El_C 23:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support, since I had forgotten he wasn't one and had been meaning to repair that fact (the not being, rather than the having forgotten). -Splashtalk 03:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Based on edits will likely make a good admin. Jayjg (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per nom... hold on, I was the nom! Martin 20:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 01:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Fahrenheit Royale 17:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. --Kbdank71 18:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Had no direct contact but good maintenance work. Should be granted blocking rights for the sake of it. Every vandal should be thrilled to be blocked by Hiding! JFW | T@lk 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- 'Support. Level headed contributer. --GraemeL (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Martin Osterman 03:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --tomf688{talk} 03:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good contributor. Kefalonia 18:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. utcursch | talk 03:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, thank god that 'crats are slow, else I wouldn't have been able to support this excellent candidate. --cj | talk 05:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I'd be very interested in helping to close discussions I haven't participated in at WP:CFD and WP:MFD. The revert would also be handy in fighting the vandals. Looking at the backlog, the wikifying and the pages needing attention are things I have done before, and I'm interested in Category:Overpopulated categories and Special:Uncategorizedpages.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Gosh. Helen Hoyt was my first contribution, and although it's small I like to think of it as perfectly formed. Mitcham is one I grew from a stub, and I'm quite chuffed with that. I bash away at Comics, and Painter and decorator, and Bacchus (comics) when I can. I try to work to the verifiable standard as close as possible, and I hope that comes through.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I try and keep a level head at all times, and if it gets too much I just walk away for a bit, but I haven't really had that many problems. I do try and keep an open mind, and I hope that's been reflected in the way I edit and deal with people. I think the biggest thing to remember is that the computer screen is an excellent tool for misunderstanding people. I can't see any reason why I'd not react the same way in the future.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (18/0/0) ended 05:45 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Miborovsky (talk · contribs) – Miborovsky has over 2000 edits here and he's an avid historian.He's friendly and he helps out a lot in the Singapore portal although he's not in that country anymore.He's one good admin if we vote him!
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Nomination by Tan Ding XiangTan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 03:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I, Miborovsky, graciously accept the nomination by Tdxiang. Thank you.
Support
- Merovingian 05:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. NSLE (讨论+extra) 08:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good contributor. Kirill Lokshin 11:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support' would be an asset.Gator (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support!Yummy,yummy.Good history bits and bites from Mib...go for it,pal!Tan Ding Xiang 陈鼎翔 14:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Of course. - Mailer Diablo 17:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support BlueShirts 21:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, been an asset to wikipedia ;-) Redwolf24 (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support looked over edits and they look good. Made comment below.--MONGO 19:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I'd been wondering where Hmib had got to. Now I know. ;) Mark1 01:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, thou I wish we can see more of him! :D--Huaiwei 06:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support counterrevolutionary, capitalist pig-dog, Nazi lover, and imperialist Jesus worshipper. what better can we get? down with the motherland! long live comrade Miborovsky!--Jiang 08:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Keep offending the motherland, Hmiborovsky! Grr. El_C 23:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support He's an ocean of knowledge and a seeker of the truth. Keep defending the motherland, Hmib. 赵奕琨Shenzhou 06:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Will find the tools usefull. Alf melmac 02:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Fahrenheit Royale 17:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Martin Osterman 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good contributor. Kefalonia 18:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
Comments
- Low voting total here makes me wonder if requests for adminship isn't some kind of popularity contest. People in this forum should spend a few minutes, examine the editing record of a candidate and either raise questions and vote, regardless of their familiarity of the candidate. All I can say to Miborovsky is to participate a little more in the admin process and discussion. Good luck!--MONGO 19:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think it's largely that many people won't vote on the nomination of a user they haven't encountered before; so editors who work primarily in relatively obscure topic areas tend to attract fewer comments. Kirill Lokshin 00:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I do work in relatively obscure fields, so what Kirill Lokshin is probably true. I will try to get some editors I've worked with in the past to comment. :) -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 00:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not in favor of these bandwagon nominations, and I'm particularly annoyed at the "extreme nonsense on wheels with jam on it" style votes. If I see a nomination that is likely to go in a direction with which I disagree, then I'll tend to vote. All we can do to stop the silliness is to refuse to participate in it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- One of the voters to support the candidate makes me curious. At one point I believe that I saw it stated that at least 100 edits was required to be able to vote on rfa's. This voter got an account on Nov.15 [25] and all the messages on this voters page are from the candidate [26]. Has this editor been editing with just an Ip for quite awhile and just signed up?--Dakota t e 04:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hi DakotaKahn, BlueShirts has been doing substantial work on articles about the Second Sino-Japanese War as well. I'm not sure when he started editing or whether he had used a prior IP address (he used this IP - 149.142.103.63, but I'm not sure if he had other IPs or not.) I'm not the only one talking to him on his user talkpage, Jiang does too, you must have missed it because my signature is too visible. :D As for the 100-edit rule, I must say I've never heard of it, but the section "About RfA" says "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to vote". -- Миборовский U|T|C|E 06:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I try to make a well informed decision. I have some knowledge of that term so it just caught my eye which is why I looked. I have since learned that any registered user can vote, but it's the ip's that can't.--Dakota t e 17:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
- A. I've done simple watchlist and RC vandal-fighting, and sometimes contribute to AfD votes. Regardless of whether I'm given the mop and pail or not, I will be contributing to Cleanup efforts, especially on China-and/or-Singapore-related and biology articles, many of which need a lot of attention.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Certainly there are. I do not consider my edits in Wikipedia to be heavily concentrated on one single article, but rather, there is a list of articles I feel committed to, and consequently have contributed to. Committed because, though I cannot say I have no POV - I don't think any of us can say that - I channel it constructively, to encourage myself to research, write and know more about the topics I am interested in. I feel that the National Revolutionary Army's role in the Second Sino-Japanese War is too often downplayed, but instead of whining on its page, I try expand Wikipedia's coverage on the said subject, therefore bringing a more comprehensive viewpoint to the Wiki. I've done substantial work on many articles about, under, or dealing with the Second Sino-Japanese War. For example, Wikipedia used to have, if my memory doesn't fail me, 6 or 7 articles on the various battles of the Second Sino-Japanese War. Though I cannot in good conscience claim credit for all of them, I have done much work to improve the various articles on the battles - and even though a large number of them are still at the barest sub-stub stage - there exists now just 7 of 22 major battles in the War that still have red links, which I consider to be a substantial improvement over the unorganised mass of text strewn around various poorly-written pages that existed before I undertook the task, which started in earnest some time in September. As a case in point, I have almost single-handedly written the article on The Eight Hundred Heroes of the Battle of Shanghai. While it can certainly be improved substantially and is by no means worthy of being a featured article, I doubt one can find a more comprehensive article on a relatively small (in terms of number troops involved) battle in a relatively forgotten war. This I consider to be representative of my attempt to counter systematic bias on the Wiki.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I have and I will not lie and say it's not my fault - I have been engaged in conflicts before and sometimes I was in the wrong. However, every time after a conflict has been resolved, I walked away from it, wiser. I have learnt to maintain my cool, even when the opposing party is uncivil in his/her manners or dealings or actions. For example, I was involved once in a dispute at Nanking Massacre, Iris Chang, and several related pages, the archives of which might be difficult to unearth at this moment. In this dispute, the other Flowerofchivalry, who insisted that the Nanking Massacre had never happened. But, that is not the point. He/she also accused me, in a not-so-civil tone, because I was opposed to his removal of paragraphs and his insertion of unsourced, unsupported and biased information, of having limited intelligence, and of being a communist, accusations which I was furious at, at first, but later decided to ignore. As if that is not enough, the same user had been spreading malicious claims that I was doing certain things that I shouldn't been. And not just one time, either. Someone (presumably him) had been using anonymous IP addresses to revert to his favoured version of the page when various other editors and I reverted his edits. We put forward a few 3RR violation reports, and on more than one instance he accused us (more specifically me) of trying to frame him, etc. etc., and not with polite language, either. SlimVirgin was kind enough to sort out this who-was-the-puppetmaster mess for us, but in the end we decided to drop the matter since Flowerofchivalry was no longer active.
- I've learnt through my "discourse" with him and others, that certain people and things are just not worth it. At the expense of sounding corny, I must say that Wikipedia has helped me not only on the Wiki but in life as well. In the future, I will likely get into less wars and disputes, though my first and only priority is to maintain informational accuracy on the Wiki, and I will not shy from this.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (47/1/0) ended 05:45 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Jkelly (talk · contribs) – Jkelly has been with us on Wikipedia for about 3 months now. In that period he has made 3688 edits, 2273 (62%) of which are in the article namespace. He also has 299 deleted edits, a lot of which are speedy tags and other deletion-related stuff. He participates constructively at AFD and other Wikipedia procedures. He's also done work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use, and it would be good to have more admins interested in dealing with images. I'm especially impressed at how he is very calm and intelligent when interacting with users (see [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]). I doubt a cool head like this would abuse admin powers. :) Coffee 17:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept, with thanks for the kind words, and am looking forward to getting feedback from the community. Jkelly 03:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support - seems to have it all together. BD2412 T 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I like his responses and I have seen this user around --Jaranda(watz sup) 18:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, as nominator. Coffee 18:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support good user from what I've seen and three month experience is no problem with me. Admin is no big deal.Gator (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. KHM03 19:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. In my experience, this editor is reasonable and thoughtful, and respectful of consensus. Trustworthy. Xoloz 19:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Support per Xoloz - he has high standards. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Makes helpful remarks. Good luck! Wallie 21:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Im not even gonna say "I thought he was one", its too banal... Oh, I just said it.lol. Seriously, I think that Jkelly is a great Wikipedian. I also want to say thank you for giving me the feedback on the Celine Dion peer review. Good luck in your RFA! Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- No problems here.--Sean|Black 22:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Carnildo 23:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support sounds to good to be true :-D KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 00:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per above, good user. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 00:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support JKelly would make a great Wikipedia administrator He's excellent at conflict resolution, staying cool when the editing gets hot, and, in three months, he has attained a better grasp on the principles and policies of Wikipedia than people who have been here threee times as long have. --FuriousFreddy 01:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I feel that Jkelly will make a fine admin. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Definitely. Enochlau 03:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, looks like an excellent candidate for adminship. --Stormie 03:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wait ... he's only been here three months? "Thought he was one". Support, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support appears to be a strong contributor.MONGO 04:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support gets involved in the fiddly areas of wikimaintenance. Physchim62 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Kirill Lokshin 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, unlikely to abuse administrator tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - you mean I haven't voted already? --Celestianpower háblame 12:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Fine contributions. Solid top to bottom and no attitude issues raised. Marskell 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good user. Ann Heneghan (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- {{subst:User:Titoxd/RfaClicheNo1}} Titoxd's RFAbot 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Will make a very good admin. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --pgk(talk) 18:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support seems fine. Dlyons493 Talk 02:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributions, no reason to think admin tools will be abused. Jayjg (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, absolutely — hard to believe he's only been here three months...--Lordkinbote 23:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I aleady voted! El_C 04:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support—jiy (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Fahrenheit Royale 17:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support of course. Izehar 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Ramallite (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Should make a fine administrator. --GraemeL (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - good editor. +MATIA ☎ 18:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Asset to wikipedia and despite name similarity he doesn't urinate on 14 year olds. SchmuckyTheCat 22:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support The edit contributions are a testament to the value of this person here at Wikipedia. Admin status is an excellent idea in this case. --P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Martin Osterman 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Kefalonia 18:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a wash. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. utcursch | talk 03:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Well, we need one oppose vote. Nothing personal but I like to see about a years worth of activity. Klonimus 06:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Comments
- I thought I'd ask if you had any previous Wikipedia accounts? Flipping to your earliest contrib's I was quite surprised: disambiging, link-repairing, full edit summaries right from the start. In no way a criticism, just curiosity. Marskell 18:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- A: At a guess, I made about a dozen edits as an anon before registering, and some more when I was being logged-out in the midst of editing. The disambig link-repair was inspired by an edit summary I saw and seemed like a good way to teach myself the interface. Jkelly 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thx. I'll be supporting. Marskell 13:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- A: At a guess, I made about a dozen edits as an anon before registering, and some more when I was being logged-out in the midst of editing. The disambig link-repair was inspired by an edit summary I saw and seemed like a good way to teach myself the interface. Jkelly 18:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Awww, shucks. Someone I welcomed to WP is now being nominated. They just grow up so fast don't they? --LV (Dark Mark) 18:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I am mostly interested in adminship for the ability to help removing copyright infringements, which is a pet peeve of mine. I became interested in copyright and fair use images after some over-reliance on single sources when I was inspired to start a few articles on famous Canadians with my last name, and User:Fawcett5 expressed his concern about fair use of text. After doing some research on the subject, I became very interested in it, and joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. In contrast, I would enjoy helping out with the backlog at Category:NowCommons. I am both a big fan of the Commons and feel that sorting images must be one of the most pleasant cleanup chores.
- I'm not a big fan of the edit summaries that the rollback button leaves, and, if given adminship, would likely reserve it for remarkably fast-paced, persistent vandalism (which I have seen happen). When it comes to blocking/unblocking and page protection/unprotection, I feel strongly that the question an admin should ask is never whether they think personally that those things should happen, but whether there is strong consensus, as expressed by policy and guidelines, to use those tools in each individual case. I'd suggest that it is rare that urgent need of those measures coincides with a controversial use of them.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I put up The Waterboys at Peer Review, after doing a lot of work on that article and related ones (members, albums), and hope to be taking it to WP:FAC after allowing some more time for feedback on it. Three articles that I have created were used by Did You Know?; Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, Canon Episcopi and Sharon Shannon. I've done some copyediting that I believe went well, such as this. I'm also pleased with free images I have found and uploaded to the Commons, and the time that I spent putting Aradia up at Wikisource.
- I'm very invested in footnotes, and, regardless of how this RfA goes, I look forward to my main contribution to Wikipedia to be writing well-referenced articles.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. Those are two separate questions, at least for me. The one major content dispute I've played a central role in was at Talk:Stregheria. What didn't work well there was that my first appearance at that article was overly brusque, and started things off on the wrong foot. What did work well there was that I took my time in regards to discussion and changes. I spent a lot of time researching the subject, began rewriting some of the surrounding articles so that they were thoroughly referenced [32] [33], created a couple of new articles about notable related subjects (such as Aradia and Raven Grimassi), and finally, re-wrote the article in question. This experience has led me to conclude that the absolute best way to move content disputes along is to be absolutely strict about WP:CITE and WP:NOR. I've contributed thoughts and, hopefully, assistance in other editing disputes, for example at Talk:Fascism and Talk:Ian Paisley, which are both ongoing, but, as far as I can recall, the above is the only dispute in which I was arguing for a substantial, controversial change.
- The only time I have felt "stress" from a user was when I stuck my nose into an argument developing over guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music. I was surprised at the level of nastiness that developed, asked another user that I have a good collaborative relationship with for sympathy, and mentioned the incident to an uninvolved administrator. When it comes to my User page being vanadalised, or seeing nasty edit summaries directed at me, I am pretty thick-skinned.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.
Final (71/29/17) ended 06:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt (talk · contribs) – I have worked with Halibutt on Wiki for close to two years now and he has always been a reliable, friendly editor. He is one of our most active editors, contributor of countless articles, images and even voice samples, founder or co-founder of several WikiProjects and a person I respect and fully trust. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Thank you, Piotrus. Halibutt 07:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Strong support. I am proud to be the first to support Halibutt. On the issues with which we have interacted (though I have not participated in the discussions mentioned below), I have seen him act as the mediator on a number of difficult topics, in addition to his skills as a researcher and map creator. Even when we have disagreed (as has happened occasionally) I have found him to be both reasonable and persuasive, and have learned a lot from his points. A great candidate for a mop. --Goodoldpolonius2 06:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, as above. logologist 06:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cue I thought he was an admin support! I've never had the opportunity to interact with him, but I've been impressed with many of his edits. Should make a really good admin! SoLando (Talk) 07:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Grue 08:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Geoff/Gsl 08:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support . Wikipedia potrzebuje więcej zdolnych biało-czerwonych adminów. - Darwinek 10:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yeah? Well, so's your mother! So there! — JIP | Talk 10:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- No need to list it at WP:PNT :) It's basically Wikipedia needs more of talented, red-and-white admins. Halibutt
- lol. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems harmless enough. — JIP | Talk 10:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Seems like he would make a good admin --Rogerd 13:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support—good contributor with a good sense of humour. —Michael Z. 2005-11-16 16:42 Z
- Support. Critics have raised legitimate concerns and I feel Halibutt has responded to them adequately. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I have no problems with this user and the fact that he has enemies doesnt change that fact. Admin is no big deal!Gator (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Being Polish nationalist and stubborn in some cases are not very serious arguments against adminship. In my experience, he respects serious arguments. IMO he is a pretty mature person and I don't expect him abusing the privileges, which are pretty much limited and accountable, by the way. mikka (t) 18:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Mikka, de-admining someone is not that easy. I recall Stevertigo's case, for example. It's better to take care when promoting people with prior issues. --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support nobs 19:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC) An authority in his field of concentration.
- Weak Support did not have to interact with him too much, but overall looks like knowlegeable user, I do feel some of his tendencies are not very good and infringe on other users, but I do not believe he will ever misuse the tools, or will he? –Gnomz007(?) 20:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great contributor to Wikipedia. Appleseed 21:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. The scale of the contributions by Halibutt is quite impressive. True, he has strong views on certain subjects and some of his actions were unconventional, but this should not exclude him from adminship. If we were as a rule to exclude admins who made controversial edits, we would be excluding many excellent Wikipedians. Balcer 22:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I do admit that Halibutt's statements and actions left me consternated at times (esp. in the context of the VfD against the "Polish Black Book" or in several naming disputes). However, that was mainly against the background of a solid body of undisputedly constructive edits, which easily qualifies him for adminship. --Thorsten1 23:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I think that's an excellent point which is easily forgotten. Surely, 16,000 excellent edits weigh up one or two bouts of being a stubborn idiot :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 00:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. There are times when Halibutt can be hard-headed during arguments, but he should make a fine admin (and if hard-headedness was a stumbling block for adminship, I'd have been de-adminned ages ago!) Grutness...wha? 00:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support To comment on some of the opposition, I was probably the very first active editor on Wikipedia to challenge some of the site’s "Russophobia," so I understand where they are coming from. I am not a Russian nationalist or a Russian myself (I happen to be of Polish Jewish descent). But at times I felt compelled to do so because a counter-balance was needed in order to ensure WP:NPOV, and no one else was providing it. Otherwise, "Russophobia" is always going to be pervasive in an English-speaking online community because of the legacy of the Cold War. Therefore, at times I have been in strong disagreement with Halibutt. But I was able to reach a understanding with him during our first encounter, and all of my run-ins with him since then were quite cordial. Halibutt may have a strong point of view shaped by personal and family experiences with the oppressive end of Soviet and Russian imperialism, but so what? Everyone has a point of view. Unlike the POV editors unsuited for adminship, however, Halibutt is able to work constructively with editors whose worldviews starkly diverge from his own, and he is able to compromise. There are really no compelling reasons to oppose his nomination at this time. 172 02:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support V1t 03:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Although Halibutt can be involved in disputes (see Comments below), I have confidence that he would not abuse admin abilities. He is approachable, productive, and would be a worthy administrator. Olessi 05:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Strong views, but willing to discuss, productive, reliable, concerned with the project. Selena von Eichendorf 06:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support as per 172. Saravask 06:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support I watched Halibutt contributions in Lithuania and Vilnius articles and also have had discussions with him by myself. Halibutt has strong views, but discuses them and accepts consensus. Also, he is one of those who seems having strong ethics. I think he will be able to separate administrator duties from his POV, so I trust and support him. --Gvorl 08:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support--AndriyK 08:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Strong character, vivid views, good editing--BIR 08:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, having and expressing strong views should not disqualify someone from becoming an admin. Unless it can be clearly demonstrated such views might interfere with their fair judgement. From all I've seen and read this is not the case with Halibut. So let's assume good faith and extend the mop to this fine candidate from the former Soviet bloc:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 09:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. What?! You seemed like one already! A committed Wikipedian, definitely deserves the mop 'n' bucket. Brisvegas 09:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- support, Szumyk 09:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? Or is it just "the Poles should vote for Poles" thingie? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support If anything Halibutt (and especially Piotrus) have played a role in reigning in Polish nationalism on the Polish Notice Board, by encouraging the use of English there [34][35]and moving opinions out of the project space and into talk[36]. -JCarriker 10:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- support Berasategui 15:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- support I am no longer participating in wikipedia activelly but I hope my vote counts. Halibutt adds valuable information to the site and I disagree with the accusations that his views would not permit him do adminship well, in fact, unlike some other users, Halibutt is very able to understand opinions of other people and to go to compromises. As well, he visits wikipedia often. I think he would thus do well as admin, especially if he will not try to enforce his own opinions using his admin rights; I think however that he will not, thus I vote in support of his adminship. DeirYassin 16:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Just a comment on this vote: DeirYassin is editor from Lithuania and he was involved with Halibutt for several long months in discussions about naming conventions and other very controversial topics. Even the people directly against Halibutt's bias vote for him. Just a thought. Renata3 12:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Disagreements between Lithuania and Poland? Dear me... About who would be the first to join NATO and kiss Mr Ramsfeld's arse? --Pierre Aronax 13:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can see where you got confused but this is actually an RfA about a particular editor - not a free-for-all Poland-bashing forum. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 13:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd take that comment seriously and reply to it. Me and DeirYassin were both involved in quite a serious dispute about the history of Vilnius, which is an extremely touchy subject to both Poles, Belarusians and Lithuanians. For all who would like to know I would reccomend the following articles: 1, 2, 3, and perhaps 4. Halibutt
- Cliff notes version: Vilnius was ocupied (?) by Poland in the interwar. Now Lithuania is extremely unhappy - Vilnius is its capital! Now the whole mess starts when trying to determine who did what, who broke what rules, who's guilty etc. There are some ultimatums and other very nasty political and nacionalistic stuff involved. EXTREMELY touchy subject. Another subject: Naming Vilnius Wilno, Vilnia, Vilna and so on. Renata3 02:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have not seen his nationality cloud his judgement at all. All it has lead to is insight from a different point of view, which is needed for a true NPOV. Halibutt gets my full support. Jordi·✆ 19:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Like 172, DeirYassin, User:Anárion... Halibutt is a devoted and eager to help and discuss community member. I've observed a bit Ghirlandajo's crusade against some Polish contributors and all this buzz and I don't really get it. It's very easy to accuse someone for nationalism because we all have some cultural background but it's really hard to fight with such an accusation. Aegis Maelstrom 21:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Who said an admin should not have and opinion of his own ? My first contact with Halibutt was our conflict on a town naming ;-). Since then I've been meeting him frequently on many edits and respect him for his willingness to discuss and ability to reach consensus. Although he is a difficult opponent. I'm convinced of his strong ethics and am sure his adminship would be to the benefit of wikicommunity. --Lysy (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Halibutt is dedicated wikipedian, who contributed a lot of articles and is always able to reach and respect the consensus Szopen 10:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've only interacted with Halibutt briefly, but after that experience, it is my belief that he's an open minded, well-mannered and collaborative editor. Far from pushng single minded edits, I've seen him mediate in disputes in which he could have easily sided with a particular position closer to his own personal beliefs, yet he worked hard in order to achieve consensus and a neutral and encyclopedic agreement. I believe that highly qualified and friendly Polish users like Halibutt, Piotrus, Lysy et al should not pay for the questionable activities of a few another (and very different) users of the same nationality, against which in fact they often intercede in pursuit of a true and scholar NPOV. Shauri smile! 19:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. I second the comments above, especially Haukurth. --Jpbrenna 23:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nominator continuing support. In case there is any doubt as to were I stand... :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support despite there are problems but, IMO, unrelated to adminship (see my comment in the "comments" section). --Irpen 04:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I haven't read any of the above or below comments, but in my experience Halibutt is both thoughtful and conciliatory. He has demonstrated that he respects Wikipedia and his position in the Wikipedia community. I am certain that he would do nothing to compromise that as an administrator. I hope that anyone who votes against Halibutt based on his dealings with me will consider that my vote here is support. Nohat 06:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support – Kpalion (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sure. Halibutt is a geat and very dedicated contributor to Wikipedia. I've been impressed with his work ever since I became involved in WP. He's a Polish patriot, that's for sure, but I don't think it makes him particularly biased while working on this project. He's exactly the kind of person that would make a good admin. – Kpalion (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support I read all the positive and negative comments carefully. Many suggest that Halibutt’s opinions are too strong that he could make a good admin. I decided then to check the NPOV policy and the definition of bias. Here are some excerpts:
- “The basic concept of neutrality
- At Wikipedia, the terms "unbiased" and "neutral point of view" are used in a precise way that is different from the common understanding:
- Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. Since all articles are edited by people, this is difficult, as people are inherently biased.”
- And here from the Introduction:
- „The (NPOV) policy is easily misunderstood. It doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. Instead it says to fairly represent all sides of a dispute by not making articles state, imply, or insinuate that only one side is correct. Crucially, a great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.”
- Since we all are biased in this or another way, and it’s simply impossible for intelligent, thoughtful people to have a wide knowledge on a topic and not to form our own opinion, I don’t think that it’s important how strong the opinions of an administrator are, but how willing he is to cooperate with others and come to a consensus. If Halibutt’s domain was mathematics, he would probably receive 100% support in this poll. He is friendly and helpful. Actively engaged to the Wikiproject as a whole. He devotes his private time not only to write and improve articles of his interest, but also to create maps and find information for other Wikipedians. There would be no reason to refuse him support, although we would never know how he would behave in a situation of conflict. Many people who had already given their support to Halibutt are not only people who used to work with him on common articles, but they are also the people who hold strong views which stand in opposition to Halibutt’s on many controversial topics referring to the not so easy history of Poland and its neighbors. I think it’s the best recommendation for adminship. --SylwiaS 07:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, as per Shauri. Her judgment is always enough to convince me.--Wiglaf 15:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Space Cadet 16:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? Or is it just "the Poles should vote for Poles" thingie? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support; I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt here, assume good faith, and base my vote on his recent history. I remember the little brushfire over adding Polish names to German cities a few months ago, but when I put that incident in perspective with his extensive good contributions and obvious dedication to the project, I believe he will make a capable admin. Antandrus (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sure. – ugen64 17:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support tukan 20:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Nationalistic tendencies are disturbing to me, the comments from my own nominator (dab) seem especially poignant, relating to another vote I just cast. Still, support votes from many editors whom I respect lead me to support. I hope to see the candidate refrain from administrative measures in areas pertaining to his/her point of view, which has been my modus operendi here. With great trepidation. El_C 23:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. My favorite kind of editor (because it best promotes Wikipedia's purpose) is one who has a strong POV but knows how to compromise w/opponents and work toward consensus. We *need* these solution-oriented editors/admins on controversial topics. All that I've seen of Halibutt indicates he falls into this category. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Lzur 17:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Change from oppose to support. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) Make Céline Dion a FA! 01:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Roo72 05:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? have you even read all that follows below?--Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Of course I can and yes I have – I believe that the experienced used that he is, Halibutt will be a fine admin. Can you please provide a rationale for questioning my vote? Roo72 10:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can you please provide a rationale for your vote? have you even read all that follows below?--Ghirlandajo 09:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support People seem to think that if an editor merely has a POV then that automatically means he will be bias in every article he edits. This could not be further from the truth, and Halibutt is an example of why. He may want to edit something to make sure the views of his side are correctly defined, but he can still work with other people to make sure an article turns out NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Is anyone not allowed to have strong opinions anymore, or should we only have robots as administrators? I am surprised that an editor who has contributed so substantially is not an administrator yet, so he gets my full support. Gryffindor 19:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Chelman 19:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- From what I've seen, Support. --Lst27 [[User talk:Lst27|<font color=purple>(</font><font color=red>t</font><font color=cyan>a</font><font color=violet>l</font><font color=green>k</font><font color=orange>)</font>]] 23:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Has done a lot of good work on difficult topics. --BadSeed 00:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Seems to possess common sense; is simultaneously opinionated as hell and cognizant of the workings of NPOV. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- support - I realize there is bad-blood against Halibutt, and I cannot discern how much of it is deserved, and how much of it is projection. In examining Halibutt's response here to his opposition, I interpret that response as level-headed, collected, articulate and well-thoughtout. Overall, in reviewing random edits by Halibutt, I think he's reasonable and interested in the health of this project. Kingturtle 04:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think the accusations of "nationalism" are overblown just a bit. —thames 15:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Halibutt is clearly very dedicated to this project. Wiki will further benefit from his contributions in the adminship role.--Ttyre 03:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support He's a good guy GeneralPatton 04:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - his contributions to Poland-related articles are great. Ausir 22:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -he is neutral, willing to discuss any changes and in wealth of information.--Molobo 22:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --HappyCamper 03:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support kjetil_r 14:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Andre (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support. He has greatly given insight into great articles such as that on Josef Pilsudski, and Poland in general, aside from that, he has done many other worthwhile things for the Project. Эрон Кинней 00:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support long time committed / clearly reasonably stable and knowlegable / has shown willingness to move towards a consensus he doesn't agree with (e.g. the proposal that Warsaw Uprising, his "baby" should be split up). He does show patriotism. Taken too far I could have some problem with that. However, after following some of the links listed elsewhere, the accusations of nationalist (==racist/xenophobic probably including anti-semitic/anti-russian in the case of a Pole) behavior don't seem to be true and I specifically reject the use of the term as close to being a personal attack. I'd ask that he avoid being the admin that acts against Russians or Germans during disputes about pages involving Poland and its historical interactions with those other countries. --Mozzerati 22:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Sorry, but I don't think Halibutt is ready for adminship. He is a fierce Polish nationalist who takes pleasure in gratitiously bullying Russian editors. His Russophobic sentiments are too well known to enlarge upon it there. Just two days ago he declared that "if he speaks Russian, drinks vodka and sings Katyusha - he's a Russian" (see Talk:Russophobia). I don't think it's a proper way of admin's behavior. No need for further comments. --Ghirlandajo 14:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- What a way to take the quote out of context. Grue 14:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I'm kind of puzzled that my comment there was understood wrongly and that Ghirlandajo took it out of context and used it against me. Anyway, sad as it is, I explained the matter a bit more at the appropriate talk page, hope Ghirlandajo reads it. Halibutt
- Of course, I consider myself a new wikipedian and still don't understand many things here, but in my 15,000+ edits I don't think I ever resorted to using Russian for my comments on talk pages or playing on nationalistic stereotypes. Halibutt, on the other hand, does it on regular basis. Check the revert war he instigated on Ostashkov back in August, when I attempted to expand a stub created by him [37]. --Ghirlandajo 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I already forgot of that case. As seen in the edit history and talk page, I had a problem not with your expansion of the article, but on your deletion of a paragraph that was there. I tried to avoid the revert war by using the talk page, but unfortunately you didn't join me there... Halibutt 15:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Dear Halibutt, your memory fails you again. I moved your notice about alleged massacre to the article on Stolbnyi Island, where the camp was actually situated (see the article's history). But you decided that it should be present in the article on the nearby town of Ostashkov as well and started reverting, duplicating your notice here and there. --Ghirlandajo 16:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I admit I can't really do much to change your mind, can I. However, just for our future contacts: as to the Ostashkov camp - all is explained in the talk page of the article, take a look at it. As to my contributions - check my user page for more articles I contributed to. If you find something wrong with the article on Lvov professors - state it at the relevant talk page. Halibutt 17:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unfortunately, Halibutt does have nationalistic tendencies at times, if ever so slightly. I regret to not be able to support this otherwise productive contributor.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. Has no respect for consensus, even when it's overwhelmingly against him. —Cryptic (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
To be clear, my opposition stems entirely from the dispute over Template:Support, as mentioned below; I haven't encountered him in the main namespace. While I freely admit that my own handling of the situation wasn't ideal, Halibutt's continual re-creation of the template in the face of an 80%+ decision to delete on TFD shows that it wouldn't have made any difference. —Cryptic (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)- I can't make you change your vote. However, please take note that I actually acted in good faith and I was really curious why so many people delete the page instead of replying to my comments at the talk page. Halibutt
- Considering the very first edit to the talk page, where you called the deletion an "abuse [of] his or hers admin rights" [38], they probably thought it would be futile. I know I did. —Cryptic (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- But they did not try, did they. Halibutt
- I can't make you change your vote. However, please take note that I actually acted in good faith and I was really curious why so many people delete the page instead of replying to my comments at the talk page. Halibutt
- Piotrus asked me to review my vote. I have. I am now strongly, unalterably,
and permanentlyopposed. Strongly advise closing bureacrat to take note of this edit by the nominator on the administrator page of the Polish Wikipedia, look carefully at the contribution history of those supporting, and decide whether users whose sum total edits to en: have been to add pl: interwiki links and vote here truly deserve suffrage. Furthermore, nearly all of the nominators edits on en: since nominating Halibutt - about the last 75 or so - have been to spam user talk pages, soliciting support. I am thoroughly nauseated. —Cryptic (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cryptic, I have no idea whatsoever why do you assume bad will of Piotrus. Contrary to what you state above, I hadn't noticed any case where he would spam user talk pages or where he would solicit support. Either I must have missed something, or you simply assume that asking to join the discussion is equal to asking for my support. It is not. What you write above is similar to one of the remarks by Ghirlandajo, who assumed that when I ask people to be bold and correct mistakes they see, I do it only to make them revert Ghirlandajo's edits. Halibutt 17:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the editors (me certainly included) don't regularly monitor the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. The only way I and many others will find out about RFA votes involving users we are familiar with is by others letting us know about it on our talk pages. Hence, I do not understand why Cryptic objects to Piotrus notifying other editors about the vote. Balcer 17:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yesterday I had a chance to remark to Piotrus that his POV-infested notices will end in the vote being falsificated. To be honest, I even stripped his notice of POV and put it on the talk of two or three Ukrainian editors, but this displeased Halibutt and I quit at once. --Ghirlandajo 16:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ghirlandajo, please stop it. It did not displease me, rather made me smile for a while. However, what made me laugh now is your assumption that you know better what I felt. Thanks, that was refreshing :) Halibutt 17:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong in advertising the vote. As Balcer pointed out, not many people watch this page and so I notified many users whom I thought would be interested, and I did not limit myself to 'friends' or 'Poles'. Besides, I have never asked people to vote 'support only', I have only told them that there is a vote, sometimes adding an additional note about certain comments that they may find interesting. I see nothing wrong with my note on the Polish admins page - our small Polish Wiki community should certainly benefit from seeing how things are properly done on international scale, and we may get some interesting information from Halibutt's activity on that wiki.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ghirlandajo, please stop it. It did not displease me, rather made me smile for a while. However, what made me laugh now is your assumption that you know better what I felt. Thanks, that was refreshing :) Halibutt 17:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yesterday I had a chance to remark to Piotrus that his POV-infested notices will end in the vote being falsificated. To be honest, I even stripped his notice of POV and put it on the talk of two or three Ukrainian editors, but this displeased Halibutt and I quit at once. --Ghirlandajo 16:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Correct me if I am wrong, but most of the editors (me certainly included) don't regularly monitor the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. The only way I and many others will find out about RFA votes involving users we are familiar with is by others letting us know about it on our talk pages. Hence, I do not understand why Cryptic objects to Piotrus notifying other editors about the vote. Balcer 17:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cryptic, I have no idea whatsoever why do you assume bad will of Piotrus. Contrary to what you state above, I hadn't noticed any case where he would spam user talk pages or where he would solicit support. Either I must have missed something, or you simply assume that asking to join the discussion is equal to asking for my support. It is not. What you write above is similar to one of the remarks by Ghirlandajo, who assumed that when I ask people to be bold and correct mistakes they see, I do it only to make them revert Ghirlandajo's edits. Halibutt 17:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
OpposeVote discounted due to sockpuppetry. He's part of a group of Polish-nationalist POV pushers, of which the nominator Piotrus is himself a member. Note how Piotrus routinely unblocks his Polish comrade Molobo [39] - it was already a mistake to make him an admin, and with Halibutt we would see the same thing. As Ghirlandajo has mentioned below, they also frequently talk Polish with each other here on the English wiki, even though they all speak and understand English well enough. They all seem to have some paranoia that everyone is out after the Poles (see Halibutt's "How to deal with Poles"). An example of POV editing: Here he says that "Poland regained her independence" in 1989, as if Communist Poland wasn't independent. He also frequently calls opponents he's edit-warring with "vandals" (such as here where he tried to force an entirely repetitive infobox into the article). JohnSmith214 15:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)- I'm sorry, but I don't really feel a member of some Polish conspiracy. Also, I am not the author of "How to deal with Poles" (which is a joke, BTW, and I find it quite funny) and I really believe that a country that is ruled by some other state (as Poland was ruled from Moscow mostly) is not independent. For me trying to preserve NPOV is not equal to not having my own oppinions at all. If that makes me unworthy of being an admin - too bad. As to the problem Gzornenplatz had with Template:Infobox biography and his spree to delete it from all articles it was used in - I can't really say why he did that, you should ask him. Note that I ended the dispute by expanding the article. Also, the dispute over the very template was ended by a failure of the TfD process (check the relevant talk page). Halibutt 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is perfectly obvious why he deleted the template, he said so repeatedly, and I just said so myself: because it was merely repeating info from the beginning of the article. This habit of "playing dumb" that you exhibit here again is just one more reason to oppose. The point here is that you repeatedly described your opponent in a normal edit war as a vandal. Do you agree that a vandal is someone who either removes valid information or adds non-information? Do you agree that neither was done in that edit war? Is it not logical to assume that, once you call someone a vandal, you would also block that "vandal" if you had admin powers, and that you would thus block your opponents in normal edit wars? JohnSmith214 20:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I don't really feel a member of some Polish conspiracy. Also, I am not the author of "How to deal with Poles" (which is a joke, BTW, and I find it quite funny) and I really believe that a country that is ruled by some other state (as Poland was ruled from Moscow mostly) is not independent. For me trying to preserve NPOV is not equal to not having my own oppinions at all. If that makes me unworthy of being an admin - too bad. As to the problem Gzornenplatz had with Template:Infobox biography and his spree to delete it from all articles it was used in - I can't really say why he did that, you should ask him. Note that I ended the dispute by expanding the article. Also, the dispute over the very template was ended by a failure of the TfD process (check the relevant talk page). Halibutt 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I consider this sockpuppet entry a good support endorsment for Halibutt. Btw, shouldn't somebody finally ad the Polish Wikipedians conspiracy theory to the List of alleged conspiracy theories? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can we stop edit warring about removing this user's vote? Simply pointing out that he has no edits except to this RFA should be sufficient. —Cryptic (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's not an issue of counting votes. When RfAs get long and contentious people normally start moving comments to the talk page - the discussion above seemed to me like a natural candidate for such moving. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed, Haukurth - I've discounted the vote in order to keep a clear tally count tho. Shauri smile! 03:44, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's not an issue of counting votes. When RfAs get long and contentious people normally start moving comments to the talk page - the discussion above seemed to me like a natural candidate for such moving. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Can we stop edit warring about removing this user's vote? Simply pointing out that he has no edits except to this RFA should be sufficient. —Cryptic (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- About User:Molobo: he's member of small group of trolls and warriors that make good Polish contributors feeling embarassed. While I do not know history why he got blocked I bet it was for sound reason. I would recommend to investigate this thing deeper. Pavel Vozenilek 05:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The few times I've interacted with him, he's made the impression on me of being a stubborn nationalist, with a striking inability to recognize consensus. He was responsible a few months ago for bringing the Gdansk naming controversy to completely unrelated pages, such as Mainz, Aachen, Dresden, (see Talk pages) and even a large number of pages like Johannes Vermeer [40]. This was in June, but when he stopped, he did so with the threat of starting all over again ([41]), when the consensus was clearly against him. And then there's the Polish Wikipedian's Black Book, started by him, which was described by some (IMHO accurately) as a witch hunt. Eugene van der Pijll 15:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yowza, I didn't realize the whole Black Book thing came from Halibutt. I thought it was User:Witkacy's project (User:Witkacy/Black Book). I voted to delete it when it came to a vote there, and still oppose this in principle. Since it caused me so much consternation at the time, I would like to ask Halbutt whether he still thinks this approach will be a good idea when he is an administrator. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've looked at it some more, and to be fair, most of the problematic contributions to the black book came from Wiktacy; Halibutt's edits seem to indicate his intentions were good. I do still think a page like that is a bad idea, but I won't hold it against him too much. Eugene van der Pijll 16:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- The Black Book was Witkacy's idea. Halibutt moved it to his mainspace deciding that it could eventually be used as a tool for education, as even Jimbo himself suggested on one of the related talk pages (I don't have the time to find the exact page ATM). And all elements that could have been deemed a 'personal attack' have been deleted from this page long time ago.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, the black book thingie was inspired by Witkacy at Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book. Nohat felt that it was offensive to him as it took notice of some of his remarks. He deleted the page repeatedly, and it seemed that he simply cannot stand Witkacy and the two will never reach any compromise. So, I joined the discussion, took the responsibility for starting the page (which was not actually true, but shhh, don't tell anyone) and tried to reach some compromise solution by mediating between him and Witkacy and trying to reach some conclusion ([42], [43], [44], [45]), after which Nohat left this comment at my talk page, moved the page to my namespace for further discussion and deleted the redirect. Since then long time has passed and I simply forgot about that page. Does anyone find this page offensive in any rate? If so, just let me know and I'll ask for its deletion, it's not needed nor used any more. And yes, initially I thought it was a good idea to avoid RfC and all that stuff. My stance was well-explained during the RfD process. Halibutt 18:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification -- as I said in my support vote, my experience with you is as a mediator, which can be difficult in sensitive topics, so it is good to know how this actually went down. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I joined the discussion, took the responsibility for starting the page (which was not actually true: You made the first edit of the page ([46]). Now it may have well been Witkacy's idea, but I cannot check that, as most discussion on the Polish Wikipedian's notice board is in Polish. However, I do not really find your version of the page (User:Halibutt/Black Book) offensive. User:Witkacy/Black Book on the other hand... Eugene van der Pijll 22:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I changed my initial "Witkacy made" into "Witkacy inspired", as I don't remember who actually started the page. However, the sad page in my user space does not tell the story well since the page (back when it was still at Polish Wikipedians' Notice Board, was deleted several times and re-created from what people had as a copy. It turns out that the final version (fifth out of six, if memory serves me right) was re-created by yours truly from the basic scheme created by me. It was not me however to fill it. Anyway, I'm glad that people do not find that thing offensive. As I said, initially I thought it was a good idea to actually avoid conflicts. However, what happened to the idea is clearly visible and noone is planning to use it any more, so it's not that important any more. If any of the admins here wishes to delete it - go ahead, I don't mind. That's also the reason why I never thought of deleting it. I don't mind, which in this case means I don't care for that page. Halibutt 00:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yowza, I didn't realize the whole Black Book thing came from Halibutt. I thought it was User:Witkacy's project (User:Witkacy/Black Book). I voted to delete it when it came to a vote there, and still oppose this in principle. Since it caused me so much consternation at the time, I would like to ask Halbutt whether he still thinks this approach will be a good idea when he is an administrator. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. This user has an enormous amount of edits spread across the wiki, but in going over the Support Template thing I unfortunately must oppose. Re-creating any page six times
(and never, apparently, going to VFU)shows very poor judgement. If there's one thing I can't stand it's calling vandalism that which isn't. This seems to be what the user did with the deleting admins who were looking at a valid G4 under CSD. I must also say the Polish Black Book is (ahem) idiotic. Marskell 16:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)- I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. I did go to VfU once the people who deleted the template without any comment at the talk page whatsoever told me that the fact that the situation changed and that 3 months have passed is not enough to recreate it the easy way. Halibutt
- User did indeed go to VfU after the sixth re-creation. No vote change. He should have gone there after the first one. Marskell 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry. I thought that the talk page is the right place to discuss things. Apparently I was wrong. Halibutt 18:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're being grudging here is sort of confirming my oppose. As I say, re-creating a page six times is poor judgement. It just is, and I very much hesitate to give AfD closure and image deletion power to someone who would do that so recently and apparently unrepentently. Calling admins vandals and accusing of them of "malicious deletion" certainly doesn't help the case. Marskell 18:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Too bad we won't reach a compromise here. Indeed, I overreacted a bit, but please take note that I had my reasons too. And deleting a page without discussion or explanation seems malicious to me (which BTW should clear your doubts about giving me a broom and bucket :) ) Anyway, no need to continue the discussion here, I guess. Halibutt
Oppose. Keeping attack pages in your userspace is not acceptable. Plus the reactions above seem to indicate he has a tendency of aggravating disputes. Radiant_>|< 16:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Vote stricken, see below. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this one. I did go to VfU once the people who deleted the template without any comment at the talk page whatsoever told me that the fact that the situation changed and that 3 months have passed is not enough to recreate it the easy way. Halibutt
- Oppose per Cryptic and Radiant. Much too controversial to be trusted with adminship. Xoloz 16:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- What's wrong with controversial edits ? Do you think that to be an admin one has to avoid controversial topics ? --Lysy (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- In my honest opinion the controversial topics need the most admin attention as they are more likely become victims of revert wars and all that stuff. What's the point of having admins who avoid pages that need the most attention? Or perhaps it's about me personally being controversial? Halibutt 19:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Xoloz. Maybe another time. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- What's wrong with controversial edits ? Do you think that to be an admin one has to avoid controversial topics ? --Lysy (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Cryptic.--Sean|Black 22:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose, an edit summary for recreating a legitamately tfd'd template Template:Support "reinserted the template after User:ChrisO vandalized it." Calling it vandalism is just out of line, and it was less than a month ago. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 22:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I explained that above and I will do it once again, as apparently there is need to repeat it over and over again. It was my mistake and I admit I overreacted. I thought that stating my view on the matter on the respective talk page is enough for the others to at least take a look at it before they delete. Instead, the page was deleted without any explanation given - several times in a row. I considered this deletions malicious, as noone even tried to present me with rationale. However, I should not have called it a vandalism since that term was much too strong - and I apologize for that. Perhaps I should use something like "reinserted the template after User:ChrisO deleted it without any explanation given, with complete disregard for the talk page and for my arguments listed there". Halibutt 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose,I have edited with the User:Halibutt only a few articles. I found him to be a reasonable editor with some Polish POV. This is of course absolutely OK, as every human has his or her POV, and the administrators are humans. What is making me to oppose the request is his maintaining the User:Halibutt/Black Book. If a user abuses his or her priveleges as an editor by maintaining an attack page that harrases other users, then it is frightening to guess in which way he or she can abuse the administrators privileges. I think User:Halibutt should avoid harassing other users and comply with the Wikipedia rules on speedy delete and recreation of articles for at least a few months. Then I will support his nomination. abakharev 23:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)- As for harrasing and bullying other users, I may add another instance from User_talk:Knyaz: "Hi there, nice to see you here. User:Ghirlandajo is well-known already to all who contribute to articles on Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, some of his contributions are great while others show a great deal of Great-Russian view of the world. Fortunately, all of his contributions are GFDL, just like mine or yours, so correcting the mistakes he makes is really easy. Just let me know should you have any problems with that. Regards, Halibutt 12:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)" So one may understand why I don't like when they discuss myself in Polish. I don't know whether I will be able to comment on this issue again, as minutes after my vote Piotrus asked other admins to "moderate" me, whatever this is supposed to stand for. --Ghirlandajo 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ghirla, IMO you demonstrate kind of paranoia here. Halibutt has Greater Poland view of the world. You have Great Russian view on the world. This comes from the person's background. A rare person is free from what he was taught of what he read. Wikipedia is great precisely because it helps to produce a truly cosmopolitan view of the world, although with strong American/pokemon/sexually-troubled bias. But the numbers of Russian and Chinese contributors is growing, so relax and don't panic: Polish will never conquer Moscow again. (What I am doing here is "moderating" you, so tremble and whimper!) mikka (t) 00:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that the paranoia is mine. Have you ever heard the Russians whimpering about Polish plans of capturing Moscow? I think it's precisely the other way. OK, I will not press the topic of their sado-masochistic concentration on alleged massacres, but do you think it is good for a would-be admin to advise the newcomers that someone's edits should be reversed? --Ghirlandajo 00:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Bravo, mikkalai - nicely said. Some biases will be seen always, mostly 'merican one. Refering to whimpering Russians =) - there is something to the point although it's very difficult to admit, I think. =] Additionally antipolonism due to the fear (Poland=West) and cultural differences (Poland=catholicism) and megalomania on both sides has a long tradition in Russia (even the great author Dostoyevsky despite (or maybe due to...) his Polish roots was obviously prejudiced). What is important, when Russians and Poles meet each other, especially on "neutral ground", they co-operate really easily. Heh, life. =) Aegis Maelstrom 02:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Another of Molobo's sockpuppets, with no contributions at all? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- With a one year history? Give me a break. It's longer than yours or these of many en:admins'. Well, you still may call a CheckUser to check me, although your paranoia seems to be a disgrace for me. Well, maybe I'm not familiar with en: enough, just like I don't really get how you may make thousands of edits within a month (in other way than "making up the stats"). And for your information - I haven't voted yet although I consider it as Halibutt despite his "fighter" approach in really most cases fights for the truth with strange self-made experts in Slavic cultures or European history. Greets and wish you more careful remarks. =) Aegis Maelstrom 10:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Another of Molobo's sockpuppets, with no contributions at all? --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Bravo, mikkalai - nicely said. Some biases will be seen always, mostly 'merican one. Refering to whimpering Russians =) - there is something to the point although it's very difficult to admit, I think. =] Additionally antipolonism due to the fear (Poland=West) and cultural differences (Poland=catholicism) and megalomania on both sides has a long tradition in Russia (even the great author Dostoyevsky despite (or maybe due to...) his Polish roots was obviously prejudiced). What is important, when Russians and Poles meet each other, especially on "neutral ground", they co-operate really easily. Heh, life. =) Aegis Maelstrom 02:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think that the paranoia is mine. Have you ever heard the Russians whimpering about Polish plans of capturing Moscow? I think it's precisely the other way. OK, I will not press the topic of their sado-masochistic concentration on alleged massacres, but do you think it is good for a would-be admin to advise the newcomers that someone's edits should be reversed? --Ghirlandajo 00:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- As to what Alex Bakharev wrote: the only thing I can do about that page is to explain once more that it was not me to move that page there. In fact it was an admin's decision and he didn't even ask me about it before. As noone had any problems with that page after it was moved I simply forgot about it. If you find it offensive - just be bold and delete it. Or move it elsewhere. As to what Ghirlandajo wrote - indeed, this time my comment is complete and not taken out of context. And I would write it again even today as I still believe that what I wrote is ok. Knyaz asked me some questions about conduct of Ghirlandajo. I greeted the guy (a new wikipedian back then), explained that he should be bold, explained that not all what Ghirlandajo does on wikipedia is as disputable as Knyaz put it and offered my help if he needed it. I can't think of any situation where such comment would be offensive to anyone. Note that I actually defended your positive contributions after reading what Knyaz wrote on my talk page. In fact, most admins I know tend to greet people in a similar way. If it proves anything, then perhaps what I wrote before is right. I really love to be helpful. It's a great feeling to know that you helped someone. The only difference between my comment and template greetings used by others is that they do not have to reply to questions asked before the greeting is posted. As to the massacre case - I hadn't noticed your comments at Talk:Massacre of Lwów professors. Don't you think that it's the appropriate page to settle the problems you have with that article? As to what Mikka wrote - perhaps Poles will never conquer Moscow again, but Polish tapestry glue already has. I wrote an article recently and it turned out that they do not produce tapestry glue in Russia any more as the Polish-made is cheaper :) Beware! Halibutt 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Don't try to tell me that you didn't understand about Knyaz being a sockpuppet of user:AndriyK, a notorious POV-pusher, who has been terrorizing East Slavic articles for about a month now. As he gets blocked daily for his revert warring, this guy uses a variety of sockpuppets. On that day, he repeatedly assaulted the article on knyaz but was reverted by me. That's why your encouraging of his disruptive policies and your ready offer of help seemed to me particularly offensive. I'm going to bed now and will add no further comments, so good luck with your RfA. --Ghirlandajo 00:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, Ghirlandajo. I have no particular interest in hunting sock puppets or any other creatures. Neither his talk page nor his user page suggest that and I didn't have time nor interest in searching whether the guy I left a message to is good or bad, nice or not. I simply replied to his question and moved along to do something more. On that day, apart from contacting Knyaz, I also contacted Enlochau to find out why the Template:Support is being deleted, I cleaned up a test by an anon, expanded the article on Vorkuta, contacted Goodoldpolonius about the map I was making back then (still work in progress, sadly...) and started de-stubbizing an article on HMS Dragon (D46) (off-line, posted the following day; BTW, it still needs copy-edit. Anyone?). I also wrote one text for the magazine I work for, met my best friend, had a coffee with a girl I haven't seen in a while, attended a nice lecture on folk culture of peoples of Russia and did lots of things. All of them were more important than checking whether someone considers User:Knyaz a sock puppet or not. Sorry. Halibutt 01:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, I usually do not interfere with the userspaces of other users by any other way as by leaving short informative messages on their talkpages. It is you who is responsible for cleanup of your own namespace. abakharev 02:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ghirla, IMO you demonstrate kind of paranoia here. Halibutt has Greater Poland view of the world. You have Great Russian view on the world. This comes from the person's background. A rare person is free from what he was taught of what he read. Wikipedia is great precisely because it helps to produce a truly cosmopolitan view of the world, although with strong American/pokemon/sexually-troubled bias. But the numbers of Russian and Chinese contributors is growing, so relax and don't panic: Polish will never conquer Moscow again. (What I am doing here is "moderating" you, so tremble and whimper!) mikka (t) 00:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- As for harrasing and bullying other users, I may add another instance from User_talk:Knyaz: "Hi there, nice to see you here. User:Ghirlandajo is well-known already to all who contribute to articles on Central and Eastern Europe. Indeed, some of his contributions are great while others show a great deal of Great-Russian view of the world. Fortunately, all of his contributions are GFDL, just like mine or yours, so correcting the mistakes he makes is really easy. Just let me know should you have any problems with that. Regards, Halibutt 12:00, 25 October 2005 (UTC)" So one may understand why I don't like when they discuss myself in Polish. I don't know whether I will be able to comment on this issue again, as minutes after my vote Piotrus asked other admins to "moderate" me, whatever this is supposed to stand for. --Ghirlandajo 23:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose, as per Cryptic, Radiant et al. An admin must be neutral, he isn't. --Heptor 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Glad to see that he removed his Black Page. Hope this means that he is beginning to behave like an admin. --Heptor 13:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Oppose- he just has too strong bias. Renata3 03:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)- I would like to quote from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: (this policy) doesn't assume that writing an article from a single, unbiased, objective point of view is possible. (...) A great merit of Wikipedia is that Wikipedians work together to make articles unbiased.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I withdraw my vote completely. I won't change it to support or neutral. I am withdrawing because I was completely impressed by the way he handles all this critisims and oppose votes. I would say Piotrus looks a little worse than Halibutt in this case :) Renata3 20:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Good editor, but better safe than sorry. Borisblue 04:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- You wrote Good editor, but better safe than sorry. That got me thinking. I don't know most of our admins (or admin candiates). Should I vote against them until I get to know them, and so object to everybody I don't fully trust? Do you really think that Halibutt would abuse the admin rights if he was given them? If you don't know enough about him, wouldn't 'neutral' be the better choice? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (copied from talk page)
- I'd vote neutral if there was an easier way to deadmin abusive sysops. But de-admnning somebody is tedious business (Stevertigo case for instance) so I feel we have to be very careful in promoting people with prior issues. I realise that, regrettably that I would be voting against a lot of qualified people, but given the damage a rogue admin can do to WP I have to adopt this "better safe than sorry" attitude. The black book seals the oppose for me. I've no idea why people create pages like that. I was in another editor's "black book" once", and it almost feels like a personal attack. Borisblue 06:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (copied from talk page)
- Halibutt has explainted at the RfA page that the Black Book was moved to his namespace by community consensus (and it was not created by him, instead, he edited it to more NPOV version). IIRC, even Jimbo commented that it may become an educational page - after some editing, which never happened, as the page was forgotten by all concerned. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- Strange. Eventhough the page was not made by me, not used by me, voted by the community to stay and moved to my user space by the admin to list it for deletion, and, above all, was started as a way to avoid conflicts rather than promote them, it is still used as an evidence (?) of my (?) bad conduct. While I understand your better safe than sorry attitude and do not intend to even try to make you change your mind, I still find such an explanation strange. Halibutt 07:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I believe that Users are responsible for whatever is on their userpages. And besides, you argued for "keep" on the black book's VfD anyway, and is that not an endorsement? I don't know you at all, and if this RfA was put up before the Stevertigo case I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but then the fiasco surrounding Stevertigo showed me how it was almost impossible to take away adminship, no matter how blatant the abuse. Please don't be offended by how I voted, you are certainly a good editor but I don't know you enough to be sure the "black book" stuff was uncaractheristic. Borisblue 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I wonder if this could change your mind?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I don't see how the diff is relevant. I know that if someone preserved an attack page against me, the fact that Jimbo commented on its talk page won't make me feel less offended. Borisblue 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- Have you read it and still think it is an 'attack page'? It was never intended as one or used as one. Community consensus was to move it, not delete. Should the fact that this forgotten and never-used page be preserved in a user namespace be a sufficient reason for the assumption that he will abuse his admin rights and (...do what?)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- Well then, if it's never used, why is it so important to Halibutt that he still insists on maintaining it despite the damage it is doing on his RfA? Just because Jimbo scribbled a comment on its talk page? And I do feel that leaving this page is akin to a personal attack. Are you saying you won't feel hurt or offended being in Nohat's position? As a close friend of Halibutt's please persuade him to delete the page- I don't care if it technically isn't illegal, it's uncivil, and unbecoming of anyone even considering to be an admin. And please don't leave me any more messages regarding the vote- I can monitor the RfA page if I need more information about the issue. Borisblue 20:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I recently noticed your comment at Piotrus' page and would like to clarify a tad. The page was kept where it was not because I found it important, but as a matter of fact because I found it not important at all. And certainly not important enough as to look at it any more or as to waste time on asking to delete it. Note that there are lots of page in my user space that weren't used for ages, many of them are not needed any more. For instance, there is still User:Halibutt/Curzon line, which I last used in September of 2004, the page on User:Halibutt/Tabelka used in May of that year or User:Halibutt/Battle of Warsaw (1920) (November of 2004). I never really thought of deleting them as I never heard wiki needs more space and considered them to thrown out. Halibutt 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I'm not concerned that your black book takes up space, did you even consider for a moment how NoHat felt having his name on such a page? Why did you wish to offend and provoke him in that manner? I was on someone's "black book" once, and I know how it feels. I'm sorry, I cannot vote support for you unless you show that you become more considerate to other users in your editing the next few months. And please don't leave any more messages regarding your RfA- I will not change my vote this time. I will reconsider your case if you decide to reapply after a few months. Borisblue 03:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I recently noticed your comment at Piotrus' page and would like to clarify a tad. The page was kept where it was not because I found it important, but as a matter of fact because I found it not important at all. And certainly not important enough as to look at it any more or as to waste time on asking to delete it. Note that there are lots of page in my user space that weren't used for ages, many of them are not needed any more. For instance, there is still User:Halibutt/Curzon line, which I last used in September of 2004, the page on User:Halibutt/Tabelka used in May of that year or User:Halibutt/Battle of Warsaw (1920) (November of 2004). I never really thought of deleting them as I never heard wiki needs more space and considered them to thrown out. Halibutt 01:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- Well then, if it's never used, why is it so important to Halibutt that he still insists on maintaining it despite the damage it is doing on his RfA? Just because Jimbo scribbled a comment on its talk page? And I do feel that leaving this page is akin to a personal attack. Are you saying you won't feel hurt or offended being in Nohat's position? As a close friend of Halibutt's please persuade him to delete the page- I don't care if it technically isn't illegal, it's uncivil, and unbecoming of anyone even considering to be an admin. And please don't leave me any more messages regarding the vote- I can monitor the RfA page if I need more information about the issue. Borisblue 20:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- Have you read it and still think it is an 'attack page'? It was never intended as one or used as one. Community consensus was to move it, not delete. Should the fact that this forgotten and never-used page be preserved in a user namespace be a sufficient reason for the assumption that he will abuse his admin rights and (...do what?)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I don't see how the diff is relevant. I know that if someone preserved an attack page against me, the fact that Jimbo commented on its talk page won't make me feel less offended. Borisblue 19:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I wonder if this could change your mind?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- I believe that Users are responsible for whatever is on their userpages. And besides, you argued for "keep" on the black book's VfD anyway, and is that not an endorsement? I don't know you at all, and if this RfA was put up before the Stevertigo case I would have given you the benefit of the doubt, but then the fiasco surrounding Stevertigo showed me how it was almost impossible to take away adminship, no matter how blatant the abuse. Please don't be offended by how I voted, you are certainly a good editor but I don't know you enough to be sure the "black book" stuff was uncaractheristic. Borisblue 07:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)(copied from talk page)
- (Copied from Borisblue's talk page at his request; I did not want to bring it here) I thought I already explained that, but I will do it once again. I know you asked me not to post any more comments at your talk page, but I felt deeply touched by your comment on mine and your failure to understand or at least to acknowledge the real history of that page and Witkacy's conflict with Nohat, of which I'm apparently a victim now.
- It was not me to place Nohat at that page, and it was Nohat himself to move it to my personal namespace
- I did think for a while on how Nohat felt about being there, and that's precisely why I tried my mediation between him and Witkacy ([47], [48], [49], [50])
- In the latter comment I even explicitly said that I believed he should not have been listed there and that the project page was used by one of the users for his own aims rather than community's good by listing him there. I wrote that because I in fact did think for a while how did he feel about being listed there for such a non-vague thing.
- Because of my involvement, Nohat left this comment, in which he expressed his thanks to me for defending his cause and that he understood the intentions behind that page's creation
- So, basically you're holding against me what Nohat himself found as my virtue. That's why I felt your comments both on my talk page and RfA are simply unfair. And that's exactly why I decided to post this comment here. While I will not ask you to reconsider your vote, I certainly would like to hear at least some sort of explanation. You're free to oppose my nomination for any reason, but please, pretty please make this reason at least real.
- BTW, just like you, I've also been on several people's black books, be it real or imagined. That's why I thought that project was supposed to become a discussion page rather than a list of personae non gratae or anything. The fact that it evolved into something nasty was neither my intention nor an effect of my actions (as can be seen for instance in my RfD comment). Halibutt 04:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- My main concerns are that you voted 'keep' on the original black book's VfD, and that you insisted on keeping the page on your userpage for so long even after it was costing you votes on this RfA- and in fact you are still arguing that it should not be deleted- I see this as an endorsement of your "black book". I will of course listen to Nohat's version of events, should he decide to reply. Borisblue 05:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, I voted on keep and I don't deny it. As I explained above and in the VfD process, I believed (and still believe, to some extent), that starting a RfC or ArbCom processes every time anyone is offended basing on his nationality or background would not help anyone. It would not help the one offended as the one held responsible for the offence would either try to defend him/herself instead of simply saying sorry, let's forget about it, ok? (that's how human psychology often works) or the problem would simply escalate into a full-scale conflict, with dozens of Wikipedians attracted to it. Dispute resolution process should IMO be reserved for resolving serious disputes and not disagreements over this or that word, unrelated to article content. In fact, I find talking to people a much better solution, especially that such conflicts can be resolved by two people only. We simply thought (there was some chat about that page before we created it) that perhaps if we raised our concerns at certain place, external to both talk pages and users' pages, and tried to resolve them there, without the painful and time-consuming RfC, it would be much easier to get certain things straight. And that was the page I voted for. However, what has become of it is a completely different thing. As I noted on Nohat's talk page, I did not support him being listed there nor did I support that page being used for personal vendettas, as was the case of Witkacy using it in relation with his disagreement over the Talk:Kiev issue (whoever was right or wrong there, it should be resolved at Talk:Kiev). After the voting decided that there is no support for such a page as a community page and Nohat decided to move it to my namespace, it lost any sense as using it as part of a personal talk page would not be any different from using the talk page itself. That is why it was discontinued and forgotten.
- After this RfA was started and people reminded me of that long-disused page, I thought it would be better to leave it where it was for all to see. After all, I thought, it's in my personal webspace and people would count only my personal contribution to it (of which I'm not ashamed, I must say, and I don't see why should I be). However, various people (you included) started to hold that page against me as if I was the guy to offend anyone there or as if my intention was to create conflicts and not to resolve them. Still, I thought it would be better to leave it as an evidence that I did nothing wrong. However, after several people notified me on my talk page that the very existance of that page is a problem, I got fed up and asked for its deletion. As noted before, I did not insist on keeping it for so long, I simply lost any interest in it and did not insist on deleting it, moving it, blanking it, refreshing it, cleaning it up or on any other action. I simply left it where Nohat placed it and considered the case closed. Halibutt 06:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- My main concerns are that you voted 'keep' on the original black book's VfD, and that you insisted on keeping the page on your userpage for so long even after it was costing you votes on this RfA- and in fact you are still arguing that it should not be deleted- I see this as an endorsement of your "black book". I will of course listen to Nohat's version of events, should he decide to reply. Borisblue 05:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out that Nohat is supporting Halibutt's nomination.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd vote neutral if there was an easier way to deadmin abusive sysops. But de-admnning somebody is tedious business (Stevertigo case for instance) so I feel we have to be very careful in promoting people with prior issues. I realise that, regrettably that I would be voting against a lot of qualified people, but given the damage a rogue admin can do to WP I have to adopt this "better safe than sorry" attitude. The black book seals the oppose for me. I've no idea why people create pages like that. I was in another editor's "black book" once", and it almost feels like a personal attack. Borisblue 06:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (copied from talk page)
- You wrote Good editor, but better safe than sorry. That got me thinking. I don't know most of our admins (or admin candiates). Should I vote against them until I get to know them, and so object to everybody I don't fully trust? Do you really think that Halibutt would abuse the admin rights if he was given them? If you don't know enough about him, wouldn't 'neutral' be the better choice? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (copied from talk page)
- Oppose as per Ghirlandajo et al. Fisenko 05:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Nationalist POV-pushers are a disgrace and a threat to this project. The nominator has removed blocks in order to unleash one of the greatest liabilities to Wikipedia - Molobo, a troll who has alienated many great contributors from Wikipedia. I don't care in the least for Polish nationalist agendas, but I do care for the future of this project. The motivation behind this nomination is very likely the construction of a network of admins pushing a nationalist POV, with the power of unblocking each other and Molobo.--Wiglaf 08:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)- Since Shauri has expressed her trust in this candidate I retract my oppose vote, and vote support.--Wiglaf 15:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wiglaf, although you are the least neutral admin known to me and I would certainly oppose your own nomination to admisnhip, your concerns pertaining to Molobo's unblocking are legitimate and should be addressed by Piotrus et al. To quote Thorsten1 from the immortal Black Book, "Molobo, your opinions are so cliched and your arguments so utterly simple-minded that I wouldn't be at all surprised if one of these days you turned out to be some clever Polonophobe's sock-puppert, created for the sole purpose of demonstrating the sheer backwoodsness of Polish editors". I have nothing to add. Please inscribe me on the Black Book. --Ghirlandajo 09:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Wiglaf, I have already explained my actions related to Molobo's unblocking. I'll briefly summarize it for our readers, since you seem to consider this as reason enough to object this nomination and suspect me of being a part of some conspiracy: I have twice removed blocks on Molobo put on by you - the first time I still feel I was perfectly justified in this (as you were removing referenced sections and blocking those who opposed to it on the charge of 'disruption of Wikipedia'), the second time I was not and I have already apologized for this. I know now that all such cases should be reported to WP:AN/I - as I have done almost no blocks or unblocks in my admin career, I was a bit rusty on the procedure. However, you seem to be rusty on this as well, as in both cases you blocked a user without leaving him any note, reporting it anywhere and being 'at odds' over various content edits with him. Plus, you have still not replied at WP:AN/I where questions have been posed to you regarding this matter. I think that in dealing with Molobo we have both erred equaly and I have already apologised to you for my mistake in the recent incident. Could you now elaborate more on your novel concept of 'the construction of a network of admins pushing a nationalist POV with the power of unblocking each other and Molobo'? Or maybe we should call-it for short a 'Polish Admins for Molobo' (PAfM)? Seriously, if you suspect me of such motives, you may want to consider moving to de-oping me before I carry out my sinister plan...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- This vote must be discounted as it is based solely on the nominator, rather than the admin candidate[51]. Wiglaf, Please vote based on whether you think the candidate can be trusted with admin powers. — Matt Crypto 15:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- While I respectfully disagree with my friend Wiglaf and support the candidate, I think he has EVERY RIGHT to express his reasons for opposing. I also understand how he can view it this way. Taking up for Molobo, together with the infamous "Black book" have turned into a dark cloud over an otherwise fine candidate. And since we do not have any concensus yet on what should be done about Molobo, May I recommend, as a sign of GOOD FAITH, perhaps deleting the book? Even if, for some, that may not be enough this time. Maybe if will help "clear the air" so Halibutt won't smell so "fishy" to some if and when he is renominated:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with RDH (I've got to stop doing that ;-) - I voted to support Halibutt's nom' unaware of the "Black Book" issue; however, this "black book" is a very tiny part of his
11,000+16,000+ edits, the vast majority of which have been of high-standard quality. Yes, he does appear to be very strong-minded and passionate about the subjects he edits on, but he also seems to be a very reasonable, considerate individual, and I hope that those qualities (and others) would ensure that there would no misuse of admin privileges. SoLando (Talk) 11:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)- I disagree. People can support or oppose for any damn reason they choose. It is good style to give your reasons, but if you start discounting votes based on that, people will just stop doing that, voting "oppose per above" or something. If nominators are supposed to endorse candidates, it is only natural that in some cases, they will also disendorse them in the eyes of some. dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- As much as I don't agree with the reasoning for Wilgaf vote, I think that unless there is a clear rule invalidating a vote based on a a voter attitude towards a nominator persona, his vote should be counted. After all, we accept votes without requiring the voter to state reasons, and Wilgaf reasoning is not completly illogical (I can imagine worse - 'voices told me' etc. :) ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- The stricking by Matt Crypto has been removed per reasons clearly stated by all users above. It is not up to anyone but Wiglaf himself to decide whether his legitimate vote should be discounted out or not, and so far, he has not expressed intention of changing it. Shauri smile! 02:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- As much as I don't agree with the reasoning for Wilgaf vote, I think that unless there is a clear rule invalidating a vote based on a a voter attitude towards a nominator persona, his vote should be counted. After all, we accept votes without requiring the voter to state reasons, and Wilgaf reasoning is not completly illogical (I can imagine worse - 'voices told me' etc. :) ). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 14:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. People can support or oppose for any damn reason they choose. It is good style to give your reasons, but if you start discounting votes based on that, people will just stop doing that, voting "oppose per above" or something. If nominators are supposed to endorse candidates, it is only natural that in some cases, they will also disendorse them in the eyes of some. dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with RDH (I've got to stop doing that ;-) - I voted to support Halibutt's nom' unaware of the "Black Book" issue; however, this "black book" is a very tiny part of his
- While I respectfully disagree with my friend Wiglaf and support the candidate, I think he has EVERY RIGHT to express his reasons for opposing. I also understand how he can view it this way. Taking up for Molobo, together with the infamous "Black book" have turned into a dark cloud over an otherwise fine candidate. And since we do not have any concensus yet on what should be done about Molobo, May I recommend, as a sign of GOOD FAITH, perhaps deleting the book? Even if, for some, that may not be enough this time. Maybe if will help "clear the air" so Halibutt won't smell so "fishy" to some if and when he is renominated:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- This vote must be discounted as it is based solely on the nominator, rather than the admin candidate[51]. Wiglaf, Please vote based on whether you think the candidate can be trusted with admin powers. — Matt Crypto 15:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I know Halibutt only from the article history of the Jews in Poland that I reviewed as it was FAC. It seemed to me as I read it that it is was a non NPOV article biased in the sense that it embellished (at least within the lead section) the relationship between the Poles and the Jews. Here is a quote from the history of this article during the FAC discussion.
- (cur) (last) 22:51, 10 November 2005 Jayjg (why absurd? how would you characterize bans on kosher meat?)
- (cur) (last) 16:58, 10 November 2005 Halibutt (rv (government-inspired anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Poland? Seems absurd...)
- Halibutt had reveted one of the editors' change making the lead more NPOV according to my remarks. This dispute is relative to the sentence "Still, as Poland regained independence in the 20th century, immediately prior to World War II it had a vibrant Jewish community of over three million, one of the largest in the world, though anti-Semitism, both from the government and the general population, was a growing problem." and in particular to the italicized remark. As the section of the talk page talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland#Rising anti-Semitism - kosher slaughter shows, that was not Halibutt's first attempt to push this POV. I know that each editor and admin in particular has the right to have a POV. But this kind of nationalist POV is in my opinion clearly not acceptable. Vb 09:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I admit having completely forgotten about that page lately, too much happened in my life to be able to watch all the pages I wanted to. I will explain that revert (as well as a broader explanation on the phenomena of interpretation of sanitary law as an anti-Semitic measure) as soon as I have time. In short, the law was passed as the first sanitary law in Polish history. It included such passages as the obligation to build toilets in every farm (instead of using the barn - I'm serious here; BTW that's why the Polish version of john or vespasium is called sławojka, after Prime Minister Sławoj-Składkowski), the obligation to wash hands before preparing a dinner in a restaurant and so on. It also included some paragraph which were interpreted by some Jewish parties (not all of them, the Bund supported the law, if memory serves me right) which claimed that the law also prohibited ritual butchers from preparing kosher meet, as there was something about bleeding the animals. A wave of protests struck the country and the Sejm finally passed the law, but without the disputed paragraph. So, if it was the only case of government-led attempt at creating an anti-Semitic law, then it failed. That's why I believe that your statements that both general population and the government were anti-Semitic are simply factually inaccurate. Also, I reverted only once as I thought it is obvious what I meant. After that my private life problems started and I didn't have much time to contribute to it any more. I will do so as soon as I have time. Halibutt 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- As one of the major contributors to the article in question, and as one of the few non-Poles who deeply engaged in the voluminous dicussion around that page, I have to say that I do not agree with Vb about Halibutt having a "nationalist POV" on this issue. If you look at the discussion page, you will find some editors I tangled with who would certainly qualify as nationalist, but Hailbutt always had useful information and discussion to add, as is clearly demonstrated in the Talk page. To judge him by a single (well-motivated and well-supported) edit that was not even part of a revert war seems very harsh. Again, I have not encountered the strong POV mentioned by other object votes, since I don't widely participate on Polish/Russian/etc topics, but, even if it exists, the History of the Jews in Poland is not the place to find it. It was my experience working with Halibutt on this page that made me support his nomination so strongly. Vb, if this is your only objection, I would urge you to change your vote to "neutral" or "support," since I really think you are misjudging Halibutt. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Having reviewed history of the Jews in Poland for FA, I'd like to support Goodoldpolonius2 above and ask you to reconsider your vote, unless you have other objections that you have not mentioned here. Thanks. --Lysy (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- As one of the major contributors to the article in question, and as one of the few non-Poles who deeply engaged in the voluminous dicussion around that page, I have to say that I do not agree with Vb about Halibutt having a "nationalist POV" on this issue. If you look at the discussion page, you will find some editors I tangled with who would certainly qualify as nationalist, but Hailbutt always had useful information and discussion to add, as is clearly demonstrated in the Talk page. To judge him by a single (well-motivated and well-supported) edit that was not even part of a revert war seems very harsh. Again, I have not encountered the strong POV mentioned by other object votes, since I don't widely participate on Polish/Russian/etc topics, but, even if it exists, the History of the Jews in Poland is not the place to find it. It was my experience working with Halibutt on this page that made me support his nomination so strongly. Vb, if this is your only objection, I would urge you to change your vote to "neutral" or "support," since I really think you are misjudging Halibutt. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I admit having completely forgotten about that page lately, too much happened in my life to be able to watch all the pages I wanted to. I will explain that revert (as well as a broader explanation on the phenomena of interpretation of sanitary law as an anti-Semitic measure) as soon as I have time. In short, the law was passed as the first sanitary law in Polish history. It included such passages as the obligation to build toilets in every farm (instead of using the barn - I'm serious here; BTW that's why the Polish version of john or vespasium is called sławojka, after Prime Minister Sławoj-Składkowski), the obligation to wash hands before preparing a dinner in a restaurant and so on. It also included some paragraph which were interpreted by some Jewish parties (not all of them, the Bund supported the law, if memory serves me right) which claimed that the law also prohibited ritual butchers from preparing kosher meet, as there was something about bleeding the animals. A wave of protests struck the country and the Sejm finally passed the law, but without the disputed paragraph. So, if it was the only case of government-led attempt at creating an anti-Semitic law, then it failed. That's why I believe that your statements that both general population and the government were anti-Semitic are simply factually inaccurate. Also, I reverted only once as I thought it is obvious what I meant. After that my private life problems started and I didn't have much time to contribute to it any more. I will do so as soon as I have time. Halibutt 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns about my vote because I really don't know Halibutt that well but if you think I am not enough experienced wikipedian or that I don't know enough Halibutt, why did Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ask me to vote? However I have had the opportunity to read User:Halibutt/Black Book before it was deleted and this has confirmed my opinion. So that I don't intend to change it. About the controversy about the alleged governemental support to anti-Semitism: In the section History of the Jews in Poland#Rising Anti-Semitism, you can read "...Polish nationalism, supported by the Sanacja government...", other things like limited access to universities and so on. I still therefore believe Halibutt's remark "rv (government-inspired anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Poland? Seems absurd" is a proof of bad faith. Vb 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Seems absurd remark is a short form of seems absurd to me, which is quite a different thing. Also, there was no bad faith involved, rather knowledge of the subject. Apart from the sanitary law (which, as I will explain thoroughly and already explained shortly) can be treated as aimed against Jews only if you take just a tiny part of it out of context and forget to mention that that tiny part was never passed), the numerus clausus thing you're referring to is also a bad example or proof. In reality, the numerus clausus was introduced in only two universities (Wilno and Poznań, AFAIR) for a year and it was an independent decision of the universities, not of the government. After slightly more than a year it was withdrawn, if memory serves me right. Anyway, the senates of some of the universities were not the Polish government, hence I still do not find any proofs of a government-inspired anti-Semitism. So, perhaps I should've written rv (government-inspired anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Poland? Seems unsupported by any facts and biased instead of my rv (government-inspired anti-Semitism in pre-WWII Poland? Seems absurd. I'm sorry if you felt offended by the word absurd. Finally, as to the Polish nationalism, supported by the Sanacja government quote - please take note that nationalism and anti-Semitism are two different phenomena and, while often interlinked, these are not equal. You would certainly not call a Jewish nationalist an anti-Semite, would you. Halibutt 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I havent felt offended by this wording. The modification you reverted was not mine either but one I suggested. However if you believe this wording does not correspond to the historical facts why didnt you begin an edit war with Jayjg. Are you waiting the formal nomination of the article as a featured article to do that. Vb
- Why did not I begin an edit war? Perhaps I thought that it's bad to start edit wars? Or perhaps this comment by the person whom I thought was the author of that edit (didn't check it) made me think that my revert was a decent move? I can't really remember. But still, I never thought that not starting a revert war might be an argument against me... Halibutt 19:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I finally had some time and explained why the whole anti-kosher regulations argument is completely false and absurd. Please read my explanation at Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Rising anti-Semitism - kosher slaughter. Also, be warned that I quote the relevant act of the Polish Sejm, which might be a tad drastic for vegetarians or people with weak stomach. For all of them - a short summary. The ammendment passed to the act on slaughtering animals was passed before the act (disputed by the Jews) came into life. It adressed all the controversies and in the final statement explicitly stated that The regulations of this act do not apply to (...)the slaughter of animals for the groups of citizens, whose religion demands special means of slaughtering.. So, according to primary sources the whole argument does not hold water. Halibutt 21:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why did not I begin an edit war? Perhaps I thought that it's bad to start edit wars? Or perhaps this comment by the person whom I thought was the author of that edit (didn't check it) made me think that my revert was a decent move? I can't really remember. But still, I never thought that not starting a revert war might be an argument against me... Halibutt 19:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- oppose per Radiant. Everybody has a pov, it is silly to require "only neutral" editors shouold be admin. However, admins need to be capable of separating themselves from theirs when acting as admins, and this is more difficult the more unshakeable your own convictions. Halibutt doesn't convince me he is capable of this. Nationalist editors are a scourge on Wikipedia, and I will only support adminship of nationalist editors who have proven again and again their above-average skills at civility, fairness, soothing effect on their more radical peers, capability of seeing the other side etc. etc. The "support template" thing alone is sufficient to show that Halibutt is not very strong in these areas. dab (ᛏ) 11:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I only wonder why do you consider me a nationalist. Apart from the fact that the very term nationalist is quite offensive in Polish, I'm type of a socialist-liberal guy, with strong belief in democracy (still) and a lot of bad feelings for any rule of any fist, which is what nationalists usually dream of. Also, I don't consider my place in the world any better for me than yours is for you. So where's the fire, if I may ask? Halibutt 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. change my vote to weak oppose then; I am not saying you are a terrible editor, but I do think we can clearly do without the sort of controversy your adminship is bound to stir up. dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I was not trying to convince you, I was merely trying to understand you. Halibutt 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I only wonder why do you consider me a nationalist. Apart from the fact that the very term nationalist is quite offensive in Polish, I'm type of a socialist-liberal guy, with strong belief in democracy (still) and a lot of bad feelings for any rule of any fist, which is what nationalists usually dream of. Also, I don't consider my place in the world any better for me than yours is for you. So where's the fire, if I may ask? Halibutt 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- oppose per radiant. Briangotts 17:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Notwithstanding Radiant's change of heart, I still think there is too much controversy here. Briangotts 17:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- oppose. Halibutt doesn't seem neutral and objective, most of his editings are being made from ultra-conservative Polish poitn of view and aim at whitening the Polish nation. This is not a basis for being an admin. Voyevoda 17:06, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- While it is by no means required, may I ask you to be more specific? Surely you don't find "my" article on Vickers Tank Periscope MK.IV, Battle of Kircholm, Stadion Dziesięciolecia, Warsaw University, Santi Gucci, Sejny (or any other randomly-picked article from my user page) written from ultra-conservative Polish point of view and aimed at whitening the Polish nation, do you. And I can't really tell how cane you whitewash anyone with a 7TP tank, articles on Żubrówka or a stub on Žinčica... Please, diffs and links are actually helpful. Halibutt 19:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- oppose. Halibutt bullheadedly went and moved Anti-tank rifle wz.35 despite several failed attempts to achieve consensus for the move. He showed no respect whatsoever for the Wikipedia:Requested moves procedure. Gene Nygaard 02:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- But you should at least admit that I was the one to initiate all of the consensus attempts and it was you not to take part in most of them. Halibutt 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- There was no consensus for the move in the begining, but after some time you gave up the discussion, failed to post on a talk page for a month - even when Halibutt asked for opinons on a new move - and when Halibutt moved the page in September, you didn't object - until now. All details are on (fairly short) Talk:Kb_ppanc_wz.35. I don't see any wrongdoings here on the part of Halibutt.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- This was a requested move, declared failed on 10 July 2005.10 July 2005 Halibutt immediately tried to start a new vote, reasonably objected to by several people because it had just failed (#New voting)
- Then Halibutt commences a protracted revert war on his insistence on adding a "factual dispute" tag to the article, even though he never once claimed any dispute over any facts presented in the article; he was merely disputing the name of the article (the moving of which had already failed under the established procedures for such moves), something not appropriate for that tag.
- There was no change in consensus before Halibutt's move. There was no new request for the move, after allowing reasonable passage of time, which is one reason I did not notice it. He just went ahead and moved it, contrary to the decision when it was voted on. There was no indication of any change in my positition, and not even any new information from Halibutt. I did not object to the move in September because I was unaware of it until I checked before voting here.
- So we not only have a failed vote, a failed second attempt because it was coming too soon after the failure, and then a third attempt without even seeking consensus. Yes, Halibutt's actions in this article were very improper. Gene Nygaard 18:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- As the voting is most probably over, I replied to these accusations at User_talk:Gene_Nygaard#My_RfA. Halibutt 19:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- But you should at least admit that I was the one to initiate all of the consensus attempts and it was you not to take part in most of them. Halibutt 00:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Between his actions regarding [[Template:Support]] (less than a month ago!) and various Polish nationalist axe-grinding over the Gdansk/Danzig notices (demonstrating a certain contempt for consensus) and the Black Book page, I gotta say no. And if it's "no big deal" to be made an admin; well, then, it's no big deal if you're NOT made an admin, ennit? --Calton | Talk 04:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Halibutt is a great editor and a "reasonable" patriot (compared to many others). All the more it hurts me to see all this controversy, an enourmous handicap for a new admin. Also, he doesn't seem to have the traits an admin needs to work properly. Karol 09:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- (copied from user talk page)Thank you for your comments. Your comment made me think - how is a controversy a handicap for a 'broom and bucket' wielder? Also, what are the traits he is lacking? As his nominator, I wonder if I missed something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cześć! I have no experience as an admin, so I may be wrong, but it seems to me that these repeating contraversies, if continued, would cloud the good things he could do with the additional functions (however small they may be). As to the traits, what I had in mind is the inability to sometimes distance himself from certain subjects and contain his emotions. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that's bad in itself, but ultimitely I feel it's not the way an admin should act. Karol 17:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. I've been following up on the comments on this page, and I must say, my feeling has slipped from neutral territory. Enochlau 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)- I was asked why on my talk page. I initially looked at Halibutt's contributions, and I thought they were fine. However, having followed the links to several other talk pages, I just feel that perhaps there are perhaps too many feathers ruffled by Halibutt, which doesn't make a good entry into adminship. Not never, but not now. Enochlau 02:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- (copied from user talk page)Thank you for your comments. Your comment made me think - how is a controversy a handicap for a 'broom and bucket' wielder? Also, what are the traits he is lacking? As his nominator, I wonder if I missed something. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Halibutt is not admin material. He makes mostly good contributions, but he has also generated lots of trouble for the community by means of WP:POINT, leading to revert wars merely to demonstrate a point. I am worried about having him pushing WP:POINT with admin powers, and cannot support his adminship -- Chris 73 [[User talk:Chris 73|Talk]] 09:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
OpposeToo few edit summaries (before RfA) and even personal insults in some. For example the fact that just 3 hours before he was asked for adminship he called an anon who vandalized a Polish-related article a "moron" should not be overlooked.- Just four days before that, he insulted for less obvious reasons a contributor to be nationalsocialistic and even to be the offspring of nazis:
- "partial revert of some Nazi POV-pushing anon. If he has any problems with the behaviour of his ancestor he should state it on the talk page".
- His Gdansk/Danzig involvement may be over for several months but to me it seems that his strong bias in Polish-related articles persists and given that he is mainly involved in such issues, I do not think that he can put his feelings of duty as an objective admin before his bias. NightBeAsT 11:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ghirlandajo. Cadorna 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm sure he would do some good work, but too many things (the support template and the "Kb ppanc wz.35" debacle in particular) put me off. Sorry. violet/riga (t) 17:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. We all have biases, but episodes such as the repeated recreation of the support template leave me concerned that the editor's strong opinions are not sufficiently controlled. I hesitate to grant administrative powers to candidates such as these, and the great difficulty in removing administrator status, recently exemplified by the still-in-progress WP:RFAr case, leave me wary. The difficulty in persuading him to delete the "black book" is also troublesome. Finally, the nominator's campaigning on the Polish Wikipedia and recent unblock warring leave the candidate without the traditional confidence usually granted by support of a long-time or well-respected editor. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC) I should add that it appears Halibutt is a high-quality and prolific editor, and I thank him for the hard work he has put into Wikipedia. My opposition now will not preclude me from supporting in the future should the current concerns be addressed. Deletion of the black book was a great step. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose...at least for now.I haven't had as much trouble with Halibutt as I have with a few other Polish editors (and no, I don't regard "nationalism" as the dirty word some who have used it here apparently do, I would say "Polish revisionists", not "Polish nationalists")...but I have yet to see a change in the attitudes I regarded as problematic in the fracas surrounding the Black Book fiasco...namely an unwillingness to discuss why he had preserved it to begin with, or allowed it to be preserved in his userspace, nor why he did nothing to address the concerns raised by those besmirched therein...essentially allowing his userspace to be used as a place for other users to slander editors with whom they disagreed on whatever issue, with impugnity, and without providing any recourse for the accused. Incidentally, the "Black Book", while it is no longer in Halibutt's userspace, lives on at User:Witkacy/Black Book, where it has elicited not so much as a whimper of protest from Halibutt... Tomer TALK 04:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)- Ee... I didn't know this book, so thanks for the link. =) But isn't it you who is quoted there with a beautiful sentence ...Except in the minds of those poor souls brainwashed by the Polish educational system... ? You have to be really cheeky to mention this book here. First you attack personally others and than you forbid them to defend theirselves? Maybe I don't get something but this is fair? Well, existance of any black book isn't a great fact but first look at the reasons of creating it. Best regards and I hope you have changed your mind about other educational systems and ways to express your concerns. aegis maelstrom δ 05:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it is me who is quoted there, and if you bothered to go look at the quotation in context, you would see that it was questioned at the time, explained by me, and later retracted. It was, in fact, much later that I found out, quite accidentally in fact, about the existence of the "black book". Further, if you'd bothered to look into it at all, you would know that I did not personally attack anyone with the statement, it was, rather, an expression of sympathy...and most certainly, I didn't attack either User:Witkacy, who so "helpfully" added the quotation to the smear campaign or User:Halibutt. As for forbidding them to defend themselves, nothing about the blackbook was ever designed to help anyone defend themself, it was specifically designed for the heinous purpose laid out in its very name. It has not, however, on one single instance, been used to help build understanding as it so innocuously claims is its purpose in its opening. Clearly, there's something you're not getting, since categorically no it's definitely not fair... yet you seem to be implying that the victims of the blackballing campaign are the perpetrators of some great unspeakable crime. I have not, incidentally, had any change of heart regarding the deplorable education system of Poland during the Cold War. If you bother to go back and read what I was talking about in context, however, you'll understand me when I say that I have come to understand, since I made that statement, that it wasn't the Russian communists who were solely responsible for the IMNSHO "odd" views some Poles have wrt the rest of the world. Frankly, I'm a bit appalled that you would decide use my "oppose" vote as a reason to turn around and launch an attack against me... Tomer TALK 07:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I explained the reasons behind the creation of that page both on that page itself, at its talk page, at the failed VfD, some 20 times here, at the talk page of this very RfA and on talk pages of numerous users involved, so I don't understand your argument about my alleged unwillingness to discuss why I had preserved it. Is there anything I still failed to respond to? Also, your remark that I did nothing to address the concerns raised by those besmirched therein seems wrong after I negotiated with both Nohat and Witkacy, that is the two users involved in that discussion and I felt that all issues were solved back then (and would like to thank Nohat for his support of my candidacy, BTW). Also, your remark that I had allowed for my userspace to be used as a place for other users to slander editors with whom they disagreed on whatever issue is equally wrong as the list of Nohat's comments was added there when the page was still outside of my user space, at Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book. But even then I contacted both of the parties involved and tried to reach some solution on their talk pages (see the diffs and links provided above in several places). So Tom, please, you can oppose my candidacy for whatever reason you chose, but as a sign of courtesy, could you at least chose some real reason? In my wiki career I've made many bad steps, no need to invent new ones, IMO. 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Halibutt (I'm assuming it was you who posted the preceding comment)... I am opposing for a very good reason, one which you have apparently not understood. Contrary to what you claim, Nohat was not the only person in Witkacy's nasty little project while it resided in your userspace. I was, along with I believe HKT, IZAK and Thorsten1, also added during the time it was still at User:Halibutt/Black Book. When I asked on its talk page why I had been added, TWICE, my question was deleted by Witkacy. You could have claimed you didn't know what was going on, but that was not the case, as I recall from discussion at the time on your User_talk page. When I removed the slander against me from the page twice, while it was still in your userspace, since I'd gotten no response to my requests for clarification, it was added back into your userspace by Witkacy, with your implicit approval, with the accusation that I was "vandalizing your userspace". At no point during the whole sordid affair did you attempt to engage me in discussion about it, nor have you since. You can characterize me as an anti-Polack all you please as an editor, but as a sign of courtesy, could you at least accept that I think that until you address your permitting your userspace as a place to unjustly demean me [or worse], that I can't regard you as a worthy candidate for Adminship? If you seriously want me to change my vote and/or retract any of my statements, why don't you do what the Black Book's introduction says it was created for, instead of continuing the belittling and denigration of me here on your RfA page? Tomer TALK 19:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're not entirely right on this one. After you posted this passionate comment at my talk page, both me and Piotrus have replied to your doubts in as friendly tone as we could at User_talk:TShilo12/Archive_3#Black_books. Note that we did not address your offensive remarks there so as not to escalate the conflict. After you took your comments back and thanked me for my involvement I had a right to think that the matter is settled. Especially that soon afterwards Witkacy notified me that he has moved the darn thing to his own namespace. I had no idea that you changed your mind afterwards and had more questions to me. Could you be so kind as to post me a link to the questions I did not answer? Halibutt 01:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- If you thought I made offensive remarks, according to what it says in the "black book", that's what you should have been addressing. The page to which I was refering had very sneakily been moved by Witkacy to User:Halibutt/Black book. I don't have time to dig through ancient history dredging stuff up just to oppose an RfA. I still think you were negligent to allow a known troll use your userspace for so long, as a launching pad for slander against other editors, and I still think it was a show of bad judgment on your part to not only support the Black Book project, but to create it and then to preserve it "just in case" it got deleted. That said, I'm withdrawing my opposition to your candidacy. If you think I said something "offensive" tho, you really should address me with your concerns. TomerTALK 01:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I explained the reasons behind the creation of that page both on that page itself, at its talk page, at the failed VfD, some 20 times here, at the talk page of this very RfA and on talk pages of numerous users involved, so I don't understand your argument about my alleged unwillingness to discuss why I had preserved it. Is there anything I still failed to respond to? Also, your remark that I did nothing to address the concerns raised by those besmirched therein seems wrong after I negotiated with both Nohat and Witkacy, that is the two users involved in that discussion and I felt that all issues were solved back then (and would like to thank Nohat for his support of my candidacy, BTW). Also, your remark that I had allowed for my userspace to be used as a place for other users to slander editors with whom they disagreed on whatever issue is equally wrong as the list of Nohat's comments was added there when the page was still outside of my user space, at Wikipedia:Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book. But even then I contacted both of the parties involved and tried to reach some solution on their talk pages (see the diffs and links provided above in several places). So Tom, please, you can oppose my candidacy for whatever reason you chose, but as a sign of courtesy, could you at least chose some real reason? In my wiki career I've made many bad steps, no need to invent new ones, IMO. 08:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, it is me who is quoted there, and if you bothered to go look at the quotation in context, you would see that it was questioned at the time, explained by me, and later retracted. It was, in fact, much later that I found out, quite accidentally in fact, about the existence of the "black book". Further, if you'd bothered to look into it at all, you would know that I did not personally attack anyone with the statement, it was, rather, an expression of sympathy...and most certainly, I didn't attack either User:Witkacy, who so "helpfully" added the quotation to the smear campaign or User:Halibutt. As for forbidding them to defend themselves, nothing about the blackbook was ever designed to help anyone defend themself, it was specifically designed for the heinous purpose laid out in its very name. It has not, however, on one single instance, been used to help build understanding as it so innocuously claims is its purpose in its opening. Clearly, there's something you're not getting, since categorically no it's definitely not fair... yet you seem to be implying that the victims of the blackballing campaign are the perpetrators of some great unspeakable crime. I have not, incidentally, had any change of heart regarding the deplorable education system of Poland during the Cold War. If you bother to go back and read what I was talking about in context, however, you'll understand me when I say that I have come to understand, since I made that statement, that it wasn't the Russian communists who were solely responsible for the IMNSHO "odd" views some Poles have wrt the rest of the world. Frankly, I'm a bit appalled that you would decide use my "oppose" vote as a reason to turn around and launch an attack against me... Tomer TALK 07:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ee... I didn't know this book, so thanks for the link. =) But isn't it you who is quoted there with a beautiful sentence ...Except in the minds of those poor souls brainwashed by the Polish educational system... ? You have to be really cheeky to mention this book here. First you attack personally others and than you forbid them to defend theirselves? Maybe I don't get something but this is fair? Well, existance of any black book isn't a great fact but first look at the reasons of creating it. Best regards and I hope you have changed your mind about other educational systems and ways to express your concerns. aegis maelstrom δ 05:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Eugene van der Pijll refers to Halibutt's "widening" the Gdansk dispute, but I'm not sure he really indicates scale of it. About 200 edits purporting to apply the results of the Gdansk vote (admittedly highly problematic in itself, but that's another day's work) to some pretty unrelated-looking articles, including at least one 3rr violation in the process, and ignoring repeated attempts to desist. This seems as clear an example of WP:POINT as one could wish to see (or rather, be dismayed at), and one I wouldn't care to see replicated with the use of the extra buttons. Alai 07:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- For accuracy's sake, there were at least three 3RR violations - one at Dresden ([52]), one at Mainz ([53]), and one at Aachen ([54]). On the other pages involved, Halibutt seems to have confined himself to three or, usually, fewer reverts before giving up the attempt. For those interested, Halibutt has address his conduct on this issue on my talk page. john k 07:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- On another note, the Talk:Gdansk/Vote explicitly says that Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule, which was the reason why I reverted so many times. Which by no means excuses me of course. As to unrelated-looking articles, after my view of the voting was questioned and/or reverted on sight by a group of dedicated wikipedians, I concentrated on two or three instances, where I explained why I thought the Talk:Gdansk/Vote applied there at the talk pages. Take a look at Talk:Dresden to see what I mean. Halibutt 08:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- For accuracy's sake, there were at least three 3RR violations - one at Dresden ([52]), one at Mainz ([53]), and one at Aachen ([54]). On the other pages involved, Halibutt seems to have confined himself to three or, usually, fewer reverts before giving up the attempt. For those interested, Halibutt has address his conduct on this issue on my talk page. john k 07:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per reasons already given. Fahrenheit Royale 17:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose For all the long and defensive commentaries towards oppose votes. If he can't handle criticism during an rfa, no way he's going to be able to handle all of the hassles that go with being an admin. Karmafist 22:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cześć! Tak? Nie? Nie. Oppose, dzienkuje. There's more than enough evidence on this RfA alone to suggest that the user's temperament is currently not suited to admin status. Proto t c 09:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. False accusations of vandalism are unacceptable. Smit 06:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. For all the reasons given, mainly the Black Book, and also because of the many responses from Halibutt to the oppose votes. People should be allowed to vote against without being confronted. SlimVirgin (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I cannot agree with your view that my comments are a sign of my disagreement with anyone. In fact I believe that it is always better to explain my point of view because it gives everyone a chance to get to know me a tad better. They are fully entitled to vote in favour or against though. BTW, I wonder when does this voting end... Halibutt 11:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's sometimes important to respond, Halibutt, and sometimes important not to, but it's always important to know the difference. Less is more, in the case of RfAs. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Would you be willing to put your adminship up for confirmation to show us how it's done? :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 21:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's sometimes important to respond, Halibutt, and sometimes important not to, but it's always important to know the difference. Less is more, in the case of RfAs. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose votes should not be a place where people can make personal attacks with impunity and level accusations that can not be answered. If this was simply an election where people voted up or down with no comment this would be different. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed Haukur! Rfa SHOULD NOT BE A PLACE TO AIR PETTY OR PERSONAL GRUDGES! Yet all too often that's exactly what it turns into. And when it does, candidates should have EVERY RIGHT TO DEFEND/JUSTIFY THEMSELVES! Besides, it is a lot better than harassing opposing voters on their talk pages as some have done.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 12:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Less is more" - nice proverb, but I just don't see how it applies here. If one accuses you of something, you have the right to defend yourself, and Halibutt has done just that in a very civil manner (AFAIK). If he did not, and just ignored all the critique, I'd have probably withdrawn my nomination and opposed him myself, since it would have indicated to me that he cannot handle critique and opposition.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I cannot agree with your view that my comments are a sign of my disagreement with anyone. In fact I believe that it is always better to explain my point of view because it gives everyone a chance to get to know me a tad better. They are fully entitled to vote in favour or against though. BTW, I wonder when does this voting end... Halibutt 11:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- No (personal attack removed) Grace Note 14:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Voting with such a reasoning as above should not be counted, IMHO - but as I am definetly involved in this voting I will not remove it, just leave this note for the reference to indicate my opinion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Piotr, There's no need to defend against casual abuse or even consider reverting it. Such abuse spoils the the case of those who oppose your view more than any defence you can mount. Grace Note may have had a point to make, but the majority of 'pedians will now not just discount the vote (and it's not clear what that vote was, if anything) but will also symphasise with your candidate due to the crudeness of the attack. In other words: let those that oppose destroy themselves; if they're wrong, they will lose be default. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although I honestly don't see how you can say that vulgarisms may constitute any possible 'point to make', I agree that such a crude personal attack - even less sophisticated then the one by 'JohnSmith214' sockpuppet earlier - is likely to actually have an opposite effect on the voting then the orginal 'voter' intended. I do still think such votes such be removed FROM TALLY just as the mentioned sockpuppet was - we should have some standards for civility in voting, and breaching one should disquality the voter. What I definetly din't agree with is the deletion only of the offending part, since it can now make other readers wonder what the fuss is about.--Piotr Konieczny aka ProkonsulPiotrus Talk 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Piotr: Please assume good faith in my edit. My point was that Grace Note may have had a point to make, but that point (if it existed) was lost by the attack and thus benefitted Halibutt. Discounting the vote (which wasn't actually made: what do you think it was? I can't tell) will be done automatically on that basis. Try to be less defensive. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Redvers: I am sure you meant well, and I am assuming good faith on your comments - I am sorry if that was not clear. However, the entire Grace Note comment, listed above, consisted of two obscenities, and qualifies more as 'anatomical improbability' then any reasonable comment. There is a difference between saying, for example 'This **** did this and this' - which while uncivil likely has a point - and saying '***-adjective ***-noun'. As for the vote, I assume it is an 'object' vote, but I am not 'defensive' here - as you pointed out, there is little reason to be in this case - I just don't want this vandalism to affect a tally.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Piotr: Please assume good faith in my edit. My point was that Grace Note may have had a point to make, but that point (if it existed) was lost by the attack and thus benefitted Halibutt. Discounting the vote (which wasn't actually made: what do you think it was? I can't tell) will be done automatically on that basis. Try to be less defensive. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Although I honestly don't see how you can say that vulgarisms may constitute any possible 'point to make', I agree that such a crude personal attack - even less sophisticated then the one by 'JohnSmith214' sockpuppet earlier - is likely to actually have an opposite effect on the voting then the orginal 'voter' intended. I do still think such votes such be removed FROM TALLY just as the mentioned sockpuppet was - we should have some standards for civility in voting, and breaching one should disquality the voter. What I definetly din't agree with is the deletion only of the offending part, since it can now make other readers wonder what the fuss is about.--Piotr Konieczny aka ProkonsulPiotrus Talk 22:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Piotr, There's no need to defend against casual abuse or even consider reverting it. Such abuse spoils the the case of those who oppose your view more than any defence you can mount. Grace Note may have had a point to make, but the majority of 'pedians will now not just discount the vote (and it's not clear what that vote was, if anything) but will also symphasise with your candidate due to the crudeness of the attack. In other words: let those that oppose destroy themselves; if they're wrong, they will lose be default. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Voting with such a reasoning as above should not be counted, IMHO - but as I am definetly involved in this voting I will not remove it, just leave this note for the reference to indicate my opinion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Handling of 'support' template issue demonstrated poor judgement. 3RR violations over naming disputes also are troubling. If he keeps his nose clean, I could probably support his next RfA—particularly now that the Black Book is finally gone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Neutral. I had a quick look at your contributions, and I think that they are extensive and show a high degree of commitment to Wikipedia. Also, your discussion at WP:FPC is always reasoned well. However, I'm a little disappointed in your continued use of the {{support}} template at FPC despite its deletion, your previous ignorance of the speedy deletion rules and the continued recreation of the aforementioned template (see Template talk:Support). I would also suggest using the edit summaries a little more. Enochlau 09:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)- Bah. I feel like a ping pong ball. Neutral, and I'll stay here. Enochlau 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. Although I have had strong disagreements with Halibutt in the past on a number of subjects, I would be happy to support him for adminship based on most of my encounters with him. One incident, however, inclines me to remain neutral, which is Halibutt's incredibly vast violation of WP:POINT of some months ago, when he decided that he would add the Polish name of just about every German city in order to demonstrate what he saw as the absurdity of the results of one part of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote fiasco. I feel that this was a problematic display, and as such, I'm not ready to vote in support. john [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 21:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 00:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I really don't know about this user - but judging by his edits he seems like an amazing individual! You might want to count this as more a neutral that is siding with support, but as I haven't encountered him before I really can't in good faith vote support or object. The fact that Piotrus nominated him speaks well for him, though. Also, Grutness seems to think he's OK, and he's a pretty good judge of character. However, Radiant is also a good judge of character, and he voted oppose. So neutral for me. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd support his request if it weren't for his bizarre Dresden/Aachen/Mainz edit war last June. Markussep 15:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced. Halibutt is somtimes pushing his POV too hard... like admins on the "other side" of those "conflicts" Radomil talk 22:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Because of the lengthy and mature explanation Halibutt posted on my talk page, and because he requested deletion of the alleged attack page in his user space, I have withdrawn my opposition. Radiant_>|< 23:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yet he has vainly requested keeping User talk:Halibutt/Black Book because Jimbo Wales was one of them asking him to get rid of it five months ago, when it was moved there after it was deleted from the main namespace. He wouldn't even listen even with that; and he didn't even respond to those requests. It was in his user pages; it was his responsibility all the time it was there. Only the dawning realization that it is seriously jeopardizing his request for adminship finally got him to do something about it. Let's give him a while longer to show a true change of heart on these points. Gene Nygaard 03:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Check the Jimbo's comment there. I thought his idea might need a tad more work on, as he suggested that some education page could be good. I thought keeping the talk page (especially when the page is being brought against me as if it was me who offended anyone there) would be a fair resolution, especially for those who accuse me of being the one to "attack other users" or "keeping attack pages", since this would mean that the page in question no longer exists, while the talk page i would still be there for all to check. Halibutt 07:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yet he has vainly requested keeping User talk:Halibutt/Black Book because Jimbo Wales was one of them asking him to get rid of it five months ago, when it was moved there after it was deleted from the main namespace. He wouldn't even listen even with that; and he didn't even respond to those requests. It was in his user pages; it was his responsibility all the time it was there. Only the dawning realization that it is seriously jeopardizing his request for adminship finally got him to do something about it. Let's give him a while longer to show a true change of heart on these points. Gene Nygaard 03:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral, Halibutt has generally appeared to be a good and reasonable editor when I've come across him. However, I wasn't aware of the Black Book prior to this RFA and I think that it shows a serious lack of good judgement to have kept it on his user page. I'm glad to see it has been deleted but somewhat bemused by the way the talk page has been kept and the rather grudging manner it was done. Leithp (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral I am changing my vote from Oppose to Neutral since the Black book is deleted and it appeared that he was not the main author of this item. I have read a few hundreds of the recent Hailbutt edits and they all appeared to be in quite a good faith and many show deep knowledge on a wide range of subjects (especially of European History) that would never hurt any administrator to have. He is not unlike in this regard to his major opponent User:Ghirlandajo. On the other hand I still have some rezervations about the Book history (IMHO an ideal administrator should try to eliminate such things, not to support them, especially if they come from the people of his own POV) and the history of the template - having the interests of his petty edit war over the usability of the Wiki. So my present vote is Neutral. abakharev 12:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral Glad to see that he removed his Black Page. Hope this means that he is beginning to behave more like an admin. --Heptor 13:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral Halibutt is an interesting and very knowledgeable guy. Unfortunately, I believe his knowledge to be less than balanced and his point of view to not be neutral or disinterested on issues involving Poland and its history. I won't call him a "nationalist," since he indicated above that he finds the term offensive, but he has demonstrated innumerable times a tendancy to take a partisan, pro-Polish POV, particuarly on questions involving the formerly German areas that are part of today's Poland. I'm sure he would deny being anti-German, but his own family history, which includes the Nazi death camps and the Holocaust, gives him cause to be personally prejudiced against Germans. I do think this strongly colors his judgment. If I did not have an instinctive liking for Halibutt, who in cyberspace at least seems to be a charming person, I would oppose him. But I've come to like Halibutt despite often being opposed to him on Wiki, and so I will merely voice strong reservations about giving him authority over aspects of Wikipedia. Beyond that, I have reservations about any non-native English speaker being an administrator on the English-language Wikipedia, Sca 19:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, almost everyone of Polish or Jewish descent would have someone killed by the Nazis in his family history. Are you saying that it would make any Jewish or Polish person unfit for adminship ? --Lysy (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, of course not. On one hand, anyone who is Polish or Jewish, or especially a Polish Jew (which Halibutt is), is very likely to bear personal scars or harbor emotions that would would predispose the person to anti-German views - understandably so. On the other hand, it certainly would be possible for someone like that to recognize intellectually that people are people, and to put any ethnic biases aside. However, my impression is that Halibutt hasn't entirely done that, and that however charming and intelligent he may be, he tends to view Germans - and all German influences in Polish history - negatively merely because they are German. In other words, I believe that Halilbutt tends to view all things German through the lens of the Nazi experience. Sca 17:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- If they edited on articles related to the Nazis and couldn't keep their biases under control, then yes. I would hope that that wouldn't be the case though. There have always been issues on Wikipedia stemming from people immersed in cultures that are involved (or were involved) in conflict recently, but not everyone from those cultures has POV issues. I would advise you not to put the horse before the cart -- if someone cannot follow the rules, they don't belong here. That remains true even if there are systematic inabilities to disobey the rules that look like racism/sexism/whatever. --Improv 17:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sca might be right on my attitude towards modern Germans or he might be wrong, I don't know as I didn't think of Germany much in my life. Of course, we used to chat about a lot as it seems to be your main topic, but for me Germany is just yet another European state with some bad past. Which does not mean that I am describing modern Germany as if it was 1941 nor am I planning to whitewash WWII Germany in my articles on WWII.
- I met some great German wikimaniacs at the Usedom meeting we had last summer on their side of the border. Of course, WWII ultimately came out as one of the topics (after we all got a tad tipsy, I admit), but I didn't think much of that as I'm basically more interested in the past of Poland then in the present of Germany. Outside of the good ol' Talk:Gdańsk dispute back in the bad old times of User:Nico, I mostly contribute to articles on Polish geography, Central and Eastern European history and WWII. So, I never thought my own family's experiences might create a problem with keeping my own POV at bay there. Halibutt 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, almost everyone of Polish or Jewish descent would have someone killed by the Nazis in his family history. Are you saying that it would make any Jewish or Polish person unfit for adminship ? --Lysy (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral Changed my opposed to neutral, because even though his bias in his actions seems a strong argument (which might not have influenced only the opposers and unsures), his offensive behaviour seemed more like an exception. NightBeAsT 14:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. There's a lot of decent contribution from the user, but there's also a decent amount of controversy -- when people are made an admin, it should be because it's obvious to almost everyone that it should be. That's not yet the case here -- recommend coming back in a few months without having any controversy generated in the meantime and without Piotr babysitting every aspect of the nomination. If that happens, I will probably support. --Improv 17:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Apart from the fact that I was nominated in a bad time for me (lots of work at my job and a weekend far away from the keybord, I don't really feel like Piotrus was babysitting me. In fact I'm grateful for his hard work in attracting so much attention for this voting and for his support in the first place. But if having the nominator do anything more than just nominating is wrong, then perhaps we could state that loudly and clearly in some wiki rule? Halibutt 19:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral — I would have wanted to support, but Halibutt's occasional misconduct does worry me. I should note that I wholeheartedly approve of reasonable notification of possibly interested parties about ongoing RFAs, as I do not personally monitor the RFA page. I have seen some of Halibutt's work, and it is good, but the few controversies surrounding him are enough to worry me. Johnleemk | Talk 17:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral this time, but I may well support next time around. Halibutt is generally a very good contributor, by the nature of some of the articles he edits it is inevitable that he will attract a few critics (this doesn't bother me). What does bother me slightly is his behaviour at Template:Support, although I do understand why he did what he did. Ignoring consensus, even if you believe the consensus to be wrong, is not the right thing to do. Although people on both sides were at fault, I think this was too recent for me to support. I suggest that Halibutt comes back in a month or two, assuming he respects the rules in this time, I will be happy to support then. Rje 18:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
NeutralThis candidate's answers to the stock questions are very good - I like the tone and the reasonableness implied in the answers. But I worry, given the discussion here, about the potential for the candidate to be neutral in an edit war or a POV dispute etc. If you can see this amongst the long, long list here, Halibutt, could you answer me a question? If you found yourself, for an extreme example, caught between a Russian editor and a Polish editor in an edit war, would you rule yourself out or would you get involved neutrally? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)- Thanks. As to the question - I must say I'm not sure, it all depends on the case we're speaking about. Generally, I believe being an admin or not should not be a factor in such a hypotetical situation and in fact admin-Halibutt and user-Halibutt would both react in the same way. If the debated case was within my interest, that is if I had enough of my own knowledge or sources to take part in the discussion, I would do it. If there was an edit war going on, I would most probably ask the people involved to use the talk page, which in most cases ends the edit war. If the edit war went on, I'd probably ask someone to block the page to let the heads cool down a bit. And whether the people involved were Russians, Poles, Zulu or Armenian American with some Na-dene ancestry does not matter much to me. Contrary to what many people assume of me, I don't really care for nationalities. If they were indeed a Pole and a Russian I believe it would make the situation much easier for me as I speak both languages. Hope that helps to make up your mind. Halibutt 19:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- The candidate's reply is creditable and shows a grasp of admin issues as applied in the real world, so I withdraw my neutral vote. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Halibutt, while your comparison of Russian editors with Zulu people is certainly very flattering, it is worth noting that unfortunely you don't contribute articles on Zulu topics but prefer to write articles with a very strong anti-Russian edge. Minutes ago, you started Dubno, once again full of inflammatory wording. Also, are you really sure that blocking the page is the best way of dispute resolution? --Ghirlandajo 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think I ever wrote an article with a very strong anti-Russian edge in my life. I care much about Russians, but not as much as to devote my time writing articles with an edge on them. I started the article on Dubno because User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg asked me on my talk page what that town was. I decided that starting the article would be the easiest way to respond to him and I believe that that way wikipedia simply got richer by one article on a nice town. I do not consider my vocabulary offensive or inflammatory and I replied to your allegations at Talk:Dubno, so I really don't know where's the fire. Also, I explicitly stated that IMO when there is no way to stop people from revert warring, sometimes the best option is to force them to take a deep breath and use the talk page. Halibutt 22:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can't agree with you that blocking the page "is the best option", because when you protect a page written by yourself, you may perpetuate your POV phrasing for as long as you like. The article is nice and all, but it's quite annoying that in your articles Russians (or Ukrainians) always "annex" territory, while to Poland it is normally "restituted". Isn't English rich enough to eschew using the terms which may spawn edit wars? Haven't we seen enough revert warring started because of these two words? --Ghirlandajo 23:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's exactly why I wrote what I wrote above, including the words If the edit war went on, I'd probably ask someone to block the page to let the heads cool down a bit. Asking someone to do it does not include asking myself, and there's no need to assume my bad will or intentions here, Ghirlandajo. As to the rest of your comments - I believe we should discuss it in talk page of some article, and not here. Or am I wrong? Halibutt 23:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ghirlandajo, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Protected page. It clearly states that an admin cannot protect the page he is actively engaged in editing, except for cases of simple vandalism. Therefore, your worry that Halibutt will write a POV article and then protect it to enforce his POV is groundless. Balcer 23:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can't agree with you that blocking the page "is the best option", because when you protect a page written by yourself, you may perpetuate your POV phrasing for as long as you like. The article is nice and all, but it's quite annoying that in your articles Russians (or Ukrainians) always "annex" territory, while to Poland it is normally "restituted". Isn't English rich enough to eschew using the terms which may spawn edit wars? Haven't we seen enough revert warring started because of these two words? --Ghirlandajo 23:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think I ever wrote an article with a very strong anti-Russian edge in my life. I care much about Russians, but not as much as to devote my time writing articles with an edge on them. I started the article on Dubno because User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg asked me on my talk page what that town was. I decided that starting the article would be the easiest way to respond to him and I believe that that way wikipedia simply got richer by one article on a nice town. I do not consider my vocabulary offensive or inflammatory and I replied to your allegations at Talk:Dubno, so I really don't know where's the fire. Also, I explicitly stated that IMO when there is no way to stop people from revert warring, sometimes the best option is to force them to take a deep breath and use the talk page. Halibutt 22:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Halibutt, while your comparison of Russian editors with Zulu people is certainly very flattering, it is worth noting that unfortunely you don't contribute articles on Zulu topics but prefer to write articles with a very strong anti-Russian edge. Minutes ago, you started Dubno, once again full of inflammatory wording. Also, are you really sure that blocking the page is the best way of dispute resolution? --Ghirlandajo 21:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- The candidate's reply is creditable and shows a grasp of admin issues as applied in the real world, so I withdraw my neutral vote. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. As to the question - I must say I'm not sure, it all depends on the case we're speaking about. Generally, I believe being an admin or not should not be a factor in such a hypotetical situation and in fact admin-Halibutt and user-Halibutt would both react in the same way. If the debated case was within my interest, that is if I had enough of my own knowledge or sources to take part in the discussion, I would do it. If there was an edit war going on, I would most probably ask the people involved to use the talk page, which in most cases ends the edit war. If the edit war went on, I'd probably ask someone to block the page to let the heads cool down a bit. And whether the people involved were Russians, Poles, Zulu or Armenian American with some Na-dene ancestry does not matter much to me. Contrary to what many people assume of me, I don't really care for nationalities. If they were indeed a Pole and a Russian I believe it would make the situation much easier for me as I speak both languages. Hope that helps to make up your mind. Halibutt 19:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. Hallibutt does quite a bit of good work, but the Template:Support debacle and other things make me a bit nervous about his becoming an admin. I had previously abstained from voting, but having been asked to give my two cents, I can only really vote neutral on this one. Ambi 23:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. While the user does have a great deal of experience in Wiki, I again see a lot of conflict here that I can't settle with at the moment. One of the functions of an administrator is to build consensus, and I'm just not quite seeing it yet. Sorry! --Martin Osterman 03:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- Like Enochlau, I remember not being very impressed with your actions at Template:Support. You recteated it 6 times until it was replaced with {{deletedpage}}, called ChrisO and the other admins that deleted it vandals, and revert warred at FPC when others took the template out of your comments. That was about two weeks ago. Anything to say about this? Dmcdevit·t 09:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that I was a tad enraged by the fact that, instead of replying to my comments at the respective talk page, where I explained why I believed the matter should be re-discussed, people simply deleted the page without any explanation. Fortunately the talk page is still there for all to see my arguments and... well, frankly speaking no opposing arguments. Finally, take note that during his recent RfA process Cryptic admitted that he overreacted in this case and that he assumed my bad will without looking at the talk page - which was the real problem here IMO. I consider that incident unfortunate, especially that so far I received no explanation whatsoever. Also, please take note that the article was blocked with the template after I asked for admin support in resolution of the conflict. While I don't find this resolution satisfactory and I still consider the question open to discussion, the recent deletion review pretty much ended the problem. As to my usage of the template that was under attack by people ignoring the talk page - it was not my mistake as there was no rule prohibiting the use of a non-existent template. I'd rather say it was a mistake of an admin who forgot to add the <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags, which is why the {{deletedpage}} page was visible, which was not my intention. Halibutt 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to add a tiny bit to this. I don't care tuppence about the support template but Halibutt is essentially right that it was deleted for reasons that were balderdash. It did not cause any significant server-load and it didn't turn any discussions into votes. FPC is already vote-based, whether we want to admit it or not. That some people liked to display some silly green sign instead of a bolded Support is harmless. Using TfD to stop good contributors from expressing themselves like they wanted to seemed unnecessary and somewhat un-wiki-like to me. I can understand that Halibutt got annoyed. Sure, maybe he overreacted a bit but he's a good guy and we all have some stupid little things which we're stubborn as mules about :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- With respect, regardless of whether you or Halibutt think that the reasons were "balderdash", the community concensus reached (and as I remember, by quite an overwhelming majority) was to delete the template, and to not use it anywhere. Although this is not the place to discuss the support template, it suffices to say that any action deviating from the concensus reached in the past should be met by some kind of discussion beforehand, and stubbornly affirming your position isn't what we're on about. Enochlau 15:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- This consensus you speak of is obtained by counting votes, precisely the procedure many of the people objecting to the template were objecting to. If you read the TfD debate as a discussion rather than a vote you'll see that many of the people who say they want the template deleted cite a reason which is factually and objectively wrong - that it causes a significant server-load.
- Again, I personally couldn't care less that this was deleted - I apparently didn't even bother to comment at the time even though I remember seeing the TfD. And I agree that it's often necessary to defer to the majority opinion - even when it is based on balderdash reasons :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- With respect, regardless of whether you or Halibutt think that the reasons were "balderdash", the community concensus reached (and as I remember, by quite an overwhelming majority) was to delete the template, and to not use it anywhere. Although this is not the place to discuss the support template, it suffices to say that any action deviating from the concensus reached in the past should be met by some kind of discussion beforehand, and stubbornly affirming your position isn't what we're on about. Enochlau 15:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd like to add a tiny bit to this. I don't care tuppence about the support template but Halibutt is essentially right that it was deleted for reasons that were balderdash. It did not cause any significant server-load and it didn't turn any discussions into votes. FPC is already vote-based, whether we want to admit it or not. That some people liked to display some silly green sign instead of a bolded Support is harmless. Using TfD to stop good contributors from expressing themselves like they wanted to seemed unnecessary and somewhat un-wiki-like to me. I can understand that Halibutt got annoyed. Sure, maybe he overreacted a bit but he's a good guy and we all have some stupid little things which we're stubborn as mules about :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that I was a tad enraged by the fact that, instead of replying to my comments at the respective talk page, where I explained why I believed the matter should be re-discussed, people simply deleted the page without any explanation. Fortunately the talk page is still there for all to see my arguments and... well, frankly speaking no opposing arguments. Finally, take note that during his recent RfA process Cryptic admitted that he overreacted in this case and that he assumed my bad will without looking at the talk page - which was the real problem here IMO. I consider that incident unfortunate, especially that so far I received no explanation whatsoever. Also, please take note that the article was blocked with the template after I asked for admin support in resolution of the conflict. While I don't find this resolution satisfactory and I still consider the question open to discussion, the recent deletion review pretty much ended the problem. As to my usage of the template that was under attack by people ignoring the talk page - it was not my mistake as there was no rule prohibiting the use of a non-existent template. I'd rather say it was a mistake of an admin who forgot to add the <includeonly> and <noinclude> tags, which is why the {{deletedpage}} page was visible, which was not my intention. Halibutt 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, after I saw that there is no support for the template and my option lost the deletion review I withdrew. Indeed, as Enochlau says, any action deviating from the concensus reached in the past should be met by some kind of discussion beforehand. That's why I used the Template talk:Support page, which cannot be said of those who deleted the page several times in a row. I wanted to start the discussion there, but there was noone to discuss it with as barely anyone joined it... Halibutt 15:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeh, but at the same time, writing it there was always asking for trouble - i doubt anyone has a deleted template page on their watchlist. Commenting at FPC talk might have been a better idea. And for the record, I suppose those admins were working on the basis of WP:CSD General criteria #4.
- Halibutt said above: "it was not my mistake as there was no rule prohibiting the use of a non-existent template". Surely you can understand that people vote for it to be deleted for a reason; they don't want people using it. When I removed the template from your votes it was placing two huge grey boxes in the page, saying "this template has been deleted" etc. Surely you could see this when you reverted my changes? Saying that there was a mistake in coding and that those boxes shouldn't have appeared, or that the procedure for deleting the template was incorrect, is irrelevent in my view; the template was deleted and so you should not have continued to use it. Raven4x4x 08:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yeh, but at the same time, writing it there was always asking for trouble - i doubt anyone has a deleted template page on their watchlist. Commenting at FPC talk might have been a better idea. And for the record, I suppose those admins were working on the basis of WP:CSD General criteria #4.
- Of course I did see that and I guess you also saw my edit comments, did you. In any way, I have a feeling that if I left my votes there the way they were changed (basically, the link to a non-existent template was replaced with the content of the very template, simply copy-pasted there), it would be used as even stronger argument against me. After all the community consensus was not to have or allow to use the template, and I think people meant the template itself and not simply the address. So, replacing my not functioning {{Support}} tag with the recently-deleted template would make me even more guilty as this would mean that "it's up to me to what I keep in my comments" and the unbdisputable fact would be that I was using the template after a consensus was reached not to. So, I simply reverted my votes to the way I put them and instructed several people that the problem is with <noinclude> tags. They fixed that and the problem ceased to exist. In any way, I do not consider my usage of a link to a non-existing page too harmful. Or was it? Halibutt 13:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- No, if you had left the changed votes the way they were I would have no arguement with you whatoever, neither would anyone else. On the contrary I would have appreciated the way you had stopped using the template when community consensus demanded it, and when you saw that the template was not functioning correctly. Instead you continued to use it. That is the arguement against you. Linking to a non-existant template, when you know the template to be non-existant, seems rather illogical to me, especially the final time, where the template showed nothing at all, so we couldn't even tell what you had voted. If you disagree with the deletion by all means try to get it un-deleted, but continuing to use the template while it is deleted is not the way to go about things. Raven4x4x 01:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced. People voted against the usage of this template, so using it anyway (either by means of copy-paste or by using it from someone's own namespace) would be a simple attempt to circumvent the wiki consensus. And I'm pretty sure someone would bring it up against me just like yopu're bringing against me the fact that I did not use the template. No good solution here, is there. Halibutt 07:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hang on, did you just say that I am arguing against you because you did not use the template? That is the complete opposite of what I am saying! You admit " using it anyway... would be a simple attempt to circumvent the wiki consensus." That is what I said you were doing, and that is what I have a problem with. Raven4x4x 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Now I get it! For you it would be better if I used the template, but posted at some other place (for instance as Enochlau proposed, posted at User:Fir0002/Support and not at Template:Support). For me such a solution would be similar to the problem with re-creation of a previously deleted template and would be a circumvention of the vote that wanted the page to be deleted. After it became clear thar to me that the community not only wanted the template to be deleted, but also not used at all (for various reasons like high bandwidth usage or degradation of a discussion on pics to a mere voting), I though (and still think) it would be better not to use it at all, be it by copy-paste of the template, by using a copy at Fir0002's pages or anyhow. That's why I wanted to use {{Support}}, which should do no harm to anyone, as it simply does not show at all (note that I used the link to that template in this comment alone, yet it does not show at all). Of course, as someone initially did not include the necessary tags in the deleted page, its usage resulted in some ugly boxes showing up, but you can't really blame me for that as it was not my intention to use {{deletedpage}}, but to use {{support}}, which, as I said, is harmless. Anyway, I don't use that non-existing template any more, except for one single example in this comment of mine (just to illustrate what I'm talking about). Halibutt 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd have thought that the best thing to do would be to just write support or oppose and not use any template. A template that doesn't show at all seems quite useless to me, but I'm glad that you are thinking of what is best for the page. I'm willing to put this discussion behind us, and I hope to continue seeing you around FPC. Raven4x4x 05:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Now I get it! For you it would be better if I used the template, but posted at some other place (for instance as Enochlau proposed, posted at User:Fir0002/Support and not at Template:Support). For me such a solution would be similar to the problem with re-creation of a previously deleted template and would be a circumvention of the vote that wanted the page to be deleted. After it became clear thar to me that the community not only wanted the template to be deleted, but also not used at all (for various reasons like high bandwidth usage or degradation of a discussion on pics to a mere voting), I though (and still think) it would be better not to use it at all, be it by copy-paste of the template, by using a copy at Fir0002's pages or anyhow. That's why I wanted to use {{Support}}, which should do no harm to anyone, as it simply does not show at all (note that I used the link to that template in this comment alone, yet it does not show at all). Of course, as someone initially did not include the necessary tags in the deleted page, its usage resulted in some ugly boxes showing up, but you can't really blame me for that as it was not my intention to use {{deletedpage}}, but to use {{support}}, which, as I said, is harmless. Anyway, I don't use that non-existing template any more, except for one single example in this comment of mine (just to illustrate what I'm talking about). Halibutt 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hang on, did you just say that I am arguing against you because you did not use the template? That is the complete opposite of what I am saying! You admit " using it anyway... would be a simple attempt to circumvent the wiki consensus." That is what I said you were doing, and that is what I have a problem with. Raven4x4x 00:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, after I saw that there is no support for the template and my option lost the deletion review I withdrew. Indeed, as Enochlau says, any action deviating from the concensus reached in the past should be met by some kind of discussion beforehand. That's why I used the Template talk:Support page, which cannot be said of those who deleted the page several times in a row. I wanted to start the discussion there, but there was noone to discuss it with as barely anyone joined it... Halibutt 15:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, I re-read the answers you wrote down below and I'm a little perplexed by this: "Also, for me being an admin is not so much different from being an average Wikipedian". If so, why would you like to become an administrator? Enochlau 10:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note that Jimbo says pretty much the same: This should be no big deal :) There are two reasons mainly. Firstly, being listed as one of the admins attracts attention of people who seek help. And I love to be helpful. Secondly, broom and bucket make your life easier when dealing with all sorts of things you do in wikipedia. For instance, one of the first long articles I prepared, the one on my home town, is frequently under attack by an anonymous user who adds a large number of links to advertisement sites. Reverting the page 4 times in a row and then asking some other person for help might be a funny relay race, but it takes a lot of time and efforts. Admins can do it much faster. Halibutt 11:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Halibutt, I would like to point out that your habit of conversing with your cronies in Polish on talk pages is quite disturbing. It is an English project, after all, and such behaviour doesn't meet Wikipedia Guidelines. You may have noticed that Russian editors never use Russian for their talk pages. --Ghirlandajo 14:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's multiculturalism at work, and I guess if they're more comfortable in Polish, and they're contributing that's great, but it does raise questions of openness and accountability. What do others think? Enochlau 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, let us all speak our native languages on our talk pages. When I try to thread some editor's contributors and find only Polish gibberish on his talk page, I start to suspect that the Polish editors are anxious to conceal their plans and ideas from the rest of the world. And it is getting particularly disturbing when I see my own name mentioned in a Polish sentence. --Ghirlandajo 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Polish is not gibberish :) And it's not like it's a secret code either - if you really want to know what they're saying I'm sure you can find a machine translation in two minutes. Or go to a Polish IRC channel and get someone to translate for you. Correspondence in Polish on talk pages is orders of magnitude more open than any correspondence in private mail - something which our system allows and is widely used. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, let us all speak our native languages on our talk pages. When I try to thread some editor's contributors and find only Polish gibberish on his talk page, I start to suspect that the Polish editors are anxious to conceal their plans and ideas from the rest of the world. And it is getting particularly disturbing when I see my own name mentioned in a Polish sentence. --Ghirlandajo 15:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's multiculturalism at work, and I guess if they're more comfortable in Polish, and they're contributing that's great, but it does raise questions of openness and accountability. What do others think? Enochlau 15:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, we use Polish a lot on our user talk pages and I never thought it was something bad. As Enochlau noted above, I think of this project as if it was international Wiki using English rather than English language wiki. In most cases we use Polish only when discussing things relevant to our current projects, while using English at article talk pages. I always thought that if anyone wants to know he'd ask. It's not a problem for me to translate anything from Polish to English or the other way around. However, if you consider this harmful, I can stop using Polish even when asking Piotrus of his personal oppinion on a map I created, as was the case of my recent Polish-language chatter with him. Would it make you change your mind? :) Halibutt 15:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with using whatever language you like on User talk pages. (On article talk pages, English should be used whenever possible, as it's better if the discussion can be reviewed by all). — Matt Crypto 01:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Doesn't a user own his talk page? --VKokielov 22:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- It is perfectly all right to use whatever language he prefers in the user space. --Lysy (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I have always valued Halibutt's contributions and trusted his edits to be in good faith. My concern regards his move of Dresden Frauenkirche and his resulting renaming of English-language churches into native names, despite going against community consensus. I have almost always believed that Halibutt would make a reliable administrator, but that one issue really puzzled me. Olessi 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I cannot agree with you here. I moved the page to an English language title as in the past we had lots of problems with churches named in Polish or German (St. Mary's Church, Gdańsk anyone?). Wikipedia:Use English seemed pretty self-explanatory and binding to me. After people instructed me that they prefer the German name there and the community consensus supported the move-back, I withdrew and considered the case settled. So, the move was about my only contribution to that article in it's history and instead I settled the problem at the talk page. Was it wrong? Halibutt 00:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- It's not the initial move that bothered me. It's that you used "community consensus" to move churches to their native names, like see [55], [56], & [57]. Community consensus at the Frauenkirche talk page was the exact opposite- Frauenkirche is a rare exception based on its usage in English. "Bazylika Mariacka" is not commonly used in English, and yet was moved anyway. Regardless, I do believe you would be a dependable admin. I just would advise you to listen to the community a little more before making such edits. Olessi 05:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
After some of the editors have changed their votes from "oppose" to "neutral" I started to doubt whether I erred in my harsh assessment of Halibutt's activity. So I went back to his only article which I've yet had a chance to scrutinize carefully - the Battle of Volodarka (which the Poles for the reasons obscure to me still style the Battle of Wolodarka).
I reviewed his behaviour in the discussion of Battle of Wolodarka, which happened during Polish invasion of Russia in 1919. The discussion, started by me in August 2005, is instructive of Halibutt's singular ability to work out a compromise and the civility required for an admin.
Although we all know that the would-be admin was previously blocked for breaking 3RR, which is not a very encouraging sign to start with, I decided to find out there examples of his being "able to work constructively with editors whose worldviews starkly diverge from his own" and "understand opinions of other people and to go to compromises", as his supporters say above.
When another editor - user:Irpen - asked him to provide references that the battle was indeed a Russian defeat, Halibutt cleverly retorted that the only argument to the contrary is "Irpen's nose". He then proceeded to argue for two months, citing feelings of Polish participants of the battle and summing up his position as follows: "1) One source calls it a victory; 2) You say that no source calls it a victory; 3) You lie". One may still check his message courteously entitled "Why are you lying?" on Irpen's talk page.
Particularly pathetic was Halibutt's deletion of those of Irpen's comments which didn't suit his view from the article's talk, in despite reiterated remonstrances on their author's part: once, twice, thrice.
So that's where the dispute ended after two months of futile discussions, despite Halbutt's reputation for "always being able to reach and respect the consensus", as one of his supporters says.
Sorry, I don't want an admin who regularly deletes my arguments from the talk pages and who accuses me of lying when I ask for references. As this rudeness happened just a month ago, I still believe that Halibutt is not ready for adminship. We should watch his behaviour for another month or so. --Ghirlandajo 19:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Again, Ghirlandajo took things out of context (or forgot to mention it). Several things seem a tad notable here, at least for me:
- It was me to start that article and write most of it.
- It was me to [Talk:Battle_of_Wo%C5%82odarka#Sources_that_support_the_.22Polish_victory.22_version provide] sources for my version when asked, in accordance with WP:CITE, while Irpen did not provide any to support his.
- My Irpen's nose remark was not made of bad faith, it's simply a calque of a Polish colloquial expression nos mi mówi, or my nose tells me in English, which could be roughly translated as I have an impression or I have a feeling. If it is taken as an offense in English - I'm sorry, it was not my intention to offend him.
- Irpen's remark that no source calls that battle a victory while I clearly provided an online source to call it a victory was not true. While calling someone who purposedly misses the truth a liar might be strong, it is by no means wrong. Of course, the source might be of low credibility, or biased, or anything, but denial that it's there while it is there is... well... not true.
- Ghirlandajo also forgot to mention that the community voting finally found my version more credible. Sure, only four people participated, but still noone supported Irpen's version. Halibutt 00:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Irpen responds:
- Irpen responds:
The 3:1 vote is not a "community voting", I am sorry. Be it at least 9:3, I would not have said a word, but 3:1 means nothing since it is within the minimal fluctuation from an inconclusive 3:2 result. But that's a side issue. I would encourage anyone to read that long discussion at Talk:Battle_of_Wołodarka and my recent summary of it I left at User_talk:Ezhiki#Nationalism but only to get some more input into a particular article's topic. The source Halibutt used was indeed of low credibility and I invite anyone to the talk page above to check why. I repeatedly requested for an assessment from the classical book on the topic by Davies (I don't have it) to no avail. The other academic book didn't make Halibutt's conclusion, although he claimed that it implied that. There we differed. I meant that there are no academic sources who say so and being called a liar several times drove me nuts at the time. Ghirlandajo assessment of the dispute is factually correct and nothing is misrepresnted by the lack of the context. Removal of my comments from the talk also did happen however strange it is a way to prove anything. But this is not why I came here at this time. First of all, please believe me that while I still hold a grudge on how that disputed was handled, I didn't ask anyone to bring it up in connection with this RfA.
As active editors of Eastern European topics, Halibutt and myself know each other at Wiki very well. We agreed and disagreed and a couple of times I was pretty mad, as I believe Halubutt might have been too. This conflict of ours was the last one, and we hardly discussed anything with each other after that, except of the note Halibutt left at my talk today.
However, I am voting support on his RfA as per follows. My view is that for a project like Wikipedia, having more admins rather than less is crucial. I always disagreed with those who vote oppose because of "less than some thousand edits" or "less than some number of months" or "conflicts in the past = no vote from me". To me, there are two questions: whether the person is committed and whether the candidate proved that he will behave ethically, by which I mean not to block or threaten someone with a block during the opinion conflict when the policy doesn't call for a block or calls for it only with a stretch, or unblocking trolls who go out against common "enemies", inappropriately locking or unlocking articles and other similar abuses of adminship. As I said earlier, I have no doubt that Halibutt is an ethical Wikipedian, although strongly opinionated, sometimes short-tempered, stubborn and often wrong (as all of us are). His commitment to Wikipedia is beyond doubt to anyone. Hence my vote. --Irpen 04:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment Ghirlandajo, you've asked everyone who has voted to support without giving a reason to give a reason. Whilst it is a good thing for people to give reasons when voting, there is no requirement to do so. Asking 6 or 7 times for people to do so is close to WP:POINT and you should probably refrain from doing so. To be even-handed, the same applies to people challenging those who are voting to oppose - setting upon people expressing their opinion doesn't help anyone and again comes close to WP:POINT. If everyone here would like to cool off for a bit, we'd all benefit. And, all of you, please question the ideas, not the questioner. Especially if you're replying to me. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- My requests are only at attempt to add objectivity and integrity to this vote. You may have noticed that I didn't spam the users' talk pages, asking them for a rationale or inducing them to vote, unlike Piotrus &Co. As I had a chance to indicate above, I don't think spamming user pages of every opponent and asking them to reconsider their opinion adds legitimacy to this vote. --Ghirlandajo 10:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thus users who don't watch this page (as most of them probably don't) will not notice your comment and won't reply to it. And thank you of accusing me and others of being a 'spammer'. Say, how many message on people's talk pages have you left regarding this voting? I did spot quite a few.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Piotrus, I don't see anything wrong in using users' talk pages to contact them. In fact I appreciate it when someone uses my talk page if he needs to attract my attention. This said I don't see how Ghirlandajo's actions contribute towards "objectivity and integrity" of the vote but let's leave this aside. --Lysy (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thus users who don't watch this page (as most of them probably don't) will not notice your comment and won't reply to it. And thank you of accusing me and others of being a 'spammer'. Say, how many message on people's talk pages have you left regarding this voting? I did spot quite a few.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. Firstly, I must say that I always had a problem with the difference between cleanup and expansion, as for me the easiest way to clean some article up is to expand it significantly, then wikify and add as much data as I can. For me WP:CU and WP:RFE are simply two sides of the same coin and I'm equally interested in both. BTW, the same works for other problem tags. Some time ago I noticed that many (if not most) {{NPOV}} problems are due to insufficient explanation of certain problems or phenomena. So, most articles can be NPOVed by means of expansion. Also, for me being an admin is not so much different from being an average Wikipedian in that most of us revert vandalism on the spot, either through RC patrol or watchlists. Halibutt 07:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Some of the articles I contributed to got featured but I must admit that I'm particularly proud of the Warsaw Uprising series. For me that article encompasses all the virtues of a good Wikipedia article: it was prepared by a large group of people from all parts of the world, it is well-sourced, as balanced as it gets, has lots of great pictures (both historical and modern), few red links and one would not find such an article in a paper encyclopedia. Halibutt
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. Of course I've been in conflicts over various topics. Wikipedia is a very special place where various people and various, often conflicting views meet. It is always painful to learn that one's truth is not the only one out there and that what is obvious to me might not be as obvious to others. However, I learnt (the hard way, I admit) that a compromise can always be reached, except perhaps for very rare cases where one of the sides is not willing to accept it. As to dealing with stress - a deep breath always helps. Halibutt
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (16/1/2) ended 01:51 23 November 2005 (UTC)
The_Tom (talk · contribs · count) – User:The Tom seems to me like a stand up sort of guy who I assumed was an admin. He appears not to be, hence this nomination. Hiding talk 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
- I graciously accept. Thanks Hiding! The Tom 01:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Support, despite whining about the Yukon being different. :-) Lots of good edits, lots of good category cleaning up work recently. Will wield the broom sensibly and is respectuful of consensus. Will be a good administrator. Luigizanasi 02:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- The Tom has been around for a while and has made nearly 8000 edits with a good spread over the talk and project namespaces. I'm very pleased with the category work he has been doing. The only complaint that I have is the lack of information on his userpage, but that is just what I prefer to see. Otherwise, I see no reason why The Tom shouldn't become an admin. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, but please use edit summaries more often. Also, try to 'talk' more. You have only 69 usertalk edits, about .9% of your total edits. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 05:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support No reason to believe that he can't be trusted with admin tools. --Rogerd 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support 8000 edits and a solid history with "janitorial" tasks; I can't hold the 200 edits against him when he was cleaning WP's house at the time. Xoloz 07:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, good record of janitorial work. Kirill Lokshin 14:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support work on those edit summaries but I don't think that should ever be a reason not to support someone. Just because it's harder to evaluate the editor? Other than that, a lack of edit summaries aren't a good enough reason to vote oppose when being an admin is no big deal.Gator (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Use Edit summaries!:) Ohterwise, Gator is right, being an admin is no big deal. Good luck!--MONGO 20:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Ambi 00:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Good work.
- Support. El_C 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Always being sensible at WP:CFD. Martin 20:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Fahrenheit Royale 16:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --Kbdank71 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, seems like a good and dedicated editor. Palmiro | Talk 15:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. I don't know this user personally, but from looking at his last 200 edits, it is very hard to find an instance when The Tom put an edit summary, and just a bit more often he uses the minor edit button. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment. Yikes. You're quite right that I've been leaving the old edit summary blank a fair bit lately (although I was mildly surprised myself how brutal it looks at the moment). In all honesty, though, I've been on a huge Category maintenance kick lately which isn't indicative of my general editing habits. You'll find 90%+ of those edits have been either votes on CFD subpages or manual recats (which, admittedly, could have been summaried). The Tom 02:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I looked at all your edits, starting with June, 2003. I see more edit summaries, but not many more. I know that putting edit summaries is just one (and not the most important) of the qualities necessary for an admin. However, I keep my vote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- In this edit, dated November 18, 2005, you emptied a category which seemed well-named of subcategories which also seem well-named and belonging in this category. The mother category is still alive, empty for now, with no mention anywhere whether it will be deleted or not, or what on earth is going on. This is a concrete example of why edit summaries are necessary. Would you mind explaining? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- I looked at all your edits, starting with June, 2003. I see more edit summaries, but not many more. I know that putting edit summaries is just one (and not the most important) of the qualities necessary for an admin. However, I keep my vote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
- Neutral Must use Editsummarries but other than that everything is ok --Jaranda(watz sup) 03:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Will support if I see more edit summary usage by end of RFA, this is a big pet-peeve of mine, especially for an admin. Other than that, I have seen the work you have done and support you as an admin. «»Who?¿?meta 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I've been a fairly enthusiastic battler of vandalism across a heftyish swath of politics articles that have ballooned my watchlist in the past few months, and have been known to F5 good old WP:RC on the odd lonely night. The magic of [revert] would certainly let me continue this with a bit more vigour and an enhanced sense of, erm, duty. I've also been a keener is matters of article titling, and so I imagine I'll spend some time working at WP:RM as well as overwriting a long mental list of obstinate redirects that I've let slide.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Gosh. I've long been brutal at starting anything that isn't a stub, and while a few have grown into wonderful oak trees (or however the strained metaphor goes), I can't honestly say I've got a portfolio that I'm crazy about. I suppose there are a couple of political templates I can call my own... the standardized political party sidebar that started for Canadian parties like the Liberal Party of Canada has since spread throughout the Wikipedia, often unbenownst to even me, such that the likes of the Left Party (Germany) and National Party of Australia now look mildly Tommish. A lot of election articles, like Canadian federal election, 2004 and British Columbia general election, 2005 contain a lot of me, too, including that bigass candidate template/table I designed (also seen here). I'm also really pleased with the group effort I helped to participate in for 2003 UB313 which grew an article about a ball of ice to something rather good within hours of said object's discovery and continued to flesh our marvelously in the weeks that followed. That effort led me to a fair amount of work on articles like Trans-Neptunian Object.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. To be perfectly honest, I've had very few problems, considering the total number of edits I've accumulated—perhaps I've just been editing alongside too many other Canadians :). I've had the odd brush with disagreement over applying Wikiwide standardization to the odd topic, and I've lost a few WP:CFD decisions, but I've rarely let it really affect me all that much. There seems to be very little that a polite note on a talk page won't accomplish. Indeed, my talk page pretty much reflects my experience here at wikipedia, warts and all, and I can't honestly say there's been anything too heated on it (nor in any of my replies). Should the day come where I attract a bit more ire from users, which I suppose could be expected from the odd administrative decision, I see no reason to change my tune and become any more touchy.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (42/0/1) ended 01:51 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Yelyos (talk · contribs) has been an integral member of the Wikipedia community for a long time, and has consistently showed a strong commitment to NPOV, conflict resolution, and the general betterment of the Wikipedia. Yelyos is very even-handed in conflicts and reacts calmly when attacked, and thus I am nominating Yelyos for adminship without reservation. As an experiment in thinking, try not to vote based on her edit count. --Phroziac(talk) 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Candidate, please accept the nomination here: I accept the nomination. Yelyos 03:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Extreme duh. --Phroziac(talk) 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Answers to questions are good, and the nominator rocks :).--Sean|Black 04:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I seem to remember this user from somewhere. Ashibaka (tock) 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ooh - yes please. Celestianpower 08:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Four edits per day is fine. We shouldn't make terminal wiki-addiction a requirement for the mop :) - Haukur Þorgeirsson 09:22, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, looks good to me. — JIP | Talk 11:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, been around a long time and knows the rules. Should be no big deal. Rje 12:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Obvious Support No brainer.Gator[[User talk:Gator1|(talk)]] 14:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good editor --Rogerd 15:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --FireFox ™ 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support per Rje and Haukurth. Youngamerican 19:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Good editor, knows her stuff, editcountitis is the root of all evil. Lord Bob, the guy with a low edit count 20:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support I serisouly thought he was one (so cliche). -Greg Asche (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Private Butcher 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support, obviously. I thought Yelyos was one until I saw otherwise at WP:LA. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Support Doesn't meet my admin criteria cause of 4 edits a day and wiki namespace a bit low for my taste but I see him editing more often and he whould benefit with the rollback button --Jaranda(watz sup) 03:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Would someone fix the vote here thing? I haven't the time. Θrǎn e (t) (c) (e-mail) 04:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian 05:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support it's about damn time... ALKIVAR™ 06:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Yep --Ryan Delaney talk 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support--Duk 06:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 13:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support MONGO 20:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support All my interactions with this user have been good and even though he doesn't meet certain users' editcountitis standards, I feel comfortable that he'd be a good admin. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Some folks just deserve it, there's more than enough of a track record here to support. Good, level headed editor. Rx StrangeLove 07:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 07:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong support. Ambi 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- About bloody time. Kelly Martin (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. BD2412 T 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Guanaco 01:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Friendly, lots of vandal whacking. I doubt she would abuse admin privileges. delldot | talk 04:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --pgk(talk) 18:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. El_C 23:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, promising user. She promises and promises... just kidding, fine upstanding editor. Bishonen|talk 03:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, and I've corrected everyone's spelling. DS 03:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. See no cause for concern. Jayjg (talk) 07:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, not only do I not see any cause for concern, I also think this user will do well as an admin! --JoanneB 10:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 22:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Part of the furniture. Should have been adminned months ago. JFW | T@lk 02:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Notable. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. --GraemeL (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
Neutral
- I've just gone through his previous nomination, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Yelyos. Since then, the user has mustered around 1000 edits (including deleted edits) which translates to less than 4 edits per day - this is on the lower side for a would-be admin. The only reason for which I am not voting oppose is the 222 deleted edits he has - mostly copyvio tags and delete tags. --Gurubrahma 06:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Four edits a day is a reason to oppose? This is taking editcountitis to an insane level. Ambi 00:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
#Neutral per Gurubrahma. I rather see more activity as a user than 4 edits a day which is too low in my voting standards. Will support in another month. --Jaranda(watz sup) 21:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- Just wondering... Have they changed the RfA process to not include the "vote here" link at the top of the nomination? --FireFox ™ 18:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yea, it seems so. I always just used the edit link anyway. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't use a template when i nominated her, the way the template is now, it's horribly painful to do that way. --Phroziac(talk) 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yea, it seems so. I always just used the edit link anyway. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
- A. I would continue with the tasks I usually do when fighting vandals but with the admin powers, namely reverting, deleting CSDs, and blocking vandals (after they've been sufficiently warned - I tend to be on the reluctant side when it comes to blocking).
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. I'm most pleased with Popeman and Sinclair Ross, the former of which brings much amusement to my friends and family, and the latter of which I believe filled an important gap in our coverage of Canadian novelists.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
- A. I'm lucky enough not to have been involved in any serious conflicts, beyond reverting vandalism or the like. I hope I won't get into any, but if I were to get involved in a conflict I'd stop all editing on the article page as soon as I recognized there was a conflict and leave a note about it on the talk page.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.
Final (58/14/3) ended 5:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
MONGO (talk · contribs): He's an incredibly courteous user, a certified expert on anything regarding national parks, he has 6,107 edits as of the establishment of this rfa[58], and if anyone needs an example of his ability to get past differences for the betterment of the project, I can't think of a better example than my RfA. Heck, there was an attempt to nominate him for an RfA a few weeks ago, and two people voted for him before he even accepted it! If it weren't for the fact that he just went on vacation, that RfA would have passed IMO. We need more people like MONGO as admins. Karmafist 17:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am honored to accept this nomination MONGO 05:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Support
- Pre-emptive support Great guy, always civil - persistent and thorough with a cool head in controversy. --Doc ask? 17:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - again, I thought he was one. --Celestianpower háblame 17:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Absent Minded Nominator Support - I used to feel like Lulu, heck I even asked JamesMLane at one point what I could do to stop the POV wars me and him had. That was back when me and MONGO were newcomers. He's a right winger, i'm a left winger. In the real world, we might have disagreements, but on Wikipedia, we're all family: this project supercedes any ideology when you're on here, IMO. I can only hope the rest of the world feels that way about respecting their fellow man someday and rise above their differences. Karmafist 15:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, MONGO is an OK bloke. — JIP | Talk 15:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support good editor and will be great admin.Gator(talk) 15:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support On wikibreak but spotted this. All of my experiences with Mongo have left me with a great impression. He is both dedicated to wikipedia and helpful. Banes 15:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support seems good. Grue 15:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Cliché #1. Oran e (t) (c) (@) 17:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Its about time! I was about to nominate him myself.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - excellent vandal fighter. --Ixfd64 20:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good editor, I have had positive experiences with him --Rogerd 22:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Private Butcher 23:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support Excellent user another RFA that I got beatin on to nominate --JAranda | watz sup 00:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Merovingian (t) (c) 00:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- NSLE 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support--Duk 01:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - won over by the strength of your answer to question #4. BD2412 T 03:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. KHM03 04:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- I did some research, looked at the answers, and decided that I should be acting in good faith in this matter and voting for support. Regardless of the user's past, he's explained his actions to a degree that satisfies me. I am always willing to give someone a chance if they show the proper attitude, and I think that MONGO shows that attitude. --Martin Osterman 04:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme Cheesehead Support. Nice user, level headed (unlike me) and I honestly thought he was one. :-) --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 22:56, 14 November 2005 (CST)
- Support, per the answer to question #4. However, I must say, you've got to work on your temper a little bit. As an admin, you'll be on the front lines against vandalism, and some vandals will go to the point of death threats to continue with their lunacy. I'm confident that you'll learn to stay cool even in those situations. Titoxd(?!?) 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, but I second what Titoxd says about your temper.--Sean|Black 05:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Tony Sidaway 06:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC) An independent thinker, but fundamentally fair-minded.
- Support Bygones are still bygones. Alf melmac 15:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support — Eoghanacht talk 15:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - No-brainer. --kizzle 17:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support nobs 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Slam dunk.
- Support --FireFox ™ 18:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Republican senator voting for Justice Breyer or Democrat senator voting for Chief Justice Roberts Support I was going to vote neutral, but I am going to assume good faith here and vote to give this user the mop. I think Mongo will watch his temper and has lightened his POV in recent months. Also, support votes and/or lukewarm opposition by some wikipedians that have had issues with the user in the past help convince me to vote for a qualified, if controvesial, user. Youngamerican 19:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - I was definitely put off by MONGO's attitude at (then) Wikipedians for Decency, but from what I have seen he has really turned it around. I am happy to support him now. FreplySpang (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I have no reservations. -- Essjay · [[User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 21:19, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, agree with ArseJay :D Redwolf24 (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Don't insult ArseJay, he might make another RfC against himself to improve himself :D.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 02:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Users who go through this type of controversy are some of the best kinds, they know how to deal with POV, while not forgetting that POV users can add to the project. I'm convinced MONGO will do a good job. Smmurphy 03:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support -- User:Ianblair23 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I think MONGO will be a fine admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Have always had good interactions, and I believe some claims below are being blown out of proportions. --tomf688{talk} 19:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Has been extremely helpful, and also courteous, and I've noticed him making very numerous helpful changes to a number of articles. Perfect candidate, has patience with all sorts of contributors, from newcomers to angry ideologues, and good judgment. Definitely support. --Daniel11 19:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate. Dwain 22:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Most of the diffs below look bad, but they were from ages ago (one I checked was from Janunary!) I think he's grown since then. Borisblue 07:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify, (based on Lulu's objections) I do realise that the most recent diffs come from August, which is still a long time ago. Borisblue 23:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I've rarely read so thoroughly through a user contribs for an RfA as I've done with this one. Agreed, most of the oppose arguments raise my eyebrows, most notably those Mr Tibbs mentioned. Leftist foreigners might also have an opinion worth including. But checking through his last 1,000 or so, there seems to be few POV edits (seemingly none, tho i havent checked them all), or potentially worse, reverts. All the ugly edits seem to date from August or so. Admittedly, this is strange, as you would expect somebody who has been with WP since January to know better. Nonetheless, he seems to have picked up on the criticism. I especially found his remarks on User talk:Agriculture on everybody just doing their best to reach NPOV very positive (hopefully he includes leftist foreigners in this show of AGF ;-) ), and i find his work since then to be excellent, especially in vandal reverting. The Minister of War 11:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'd just like to butt in here and say that it's not just the Edit Summaries of the diffs I cited that you should be looking at. For instance, of the two recent August edits I cited: [59] [60]. The first one has an offensive Edit Summary: "rv, antiwar foreigners pushing their POV". But the Second one [61] purposely compromises the integrity of the article to make a point by inserting things like " (which never happened)". It's not just an edit summary issue. It's a POV issue as well as an article integrity issue. -- Mr. Tibbs 21:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- TacoDeposit 15:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- After careful review of his history, I am changing my vote to Support TheChief (PowWow) 22:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, should be no big deal. Seems to have learned a lot since he got here. silsor 23:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support, 'n stuff. TDC 05:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support - His positive contributions vastly outweigh the missteps of his past. – ClockworkSoul 06:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support --pgk(talk) 18:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Humorous and fun, but need to watch out a bit with his humor. :-) --Nlu 21:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. MONGO has done great work on George W. Bush and other articles. Rhobite 23:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Strong and resilient in the face of vandals on Bush's page. Just keep your head in disputes, and you'll be a great admin. Harro5 03:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Weak support. I have been impressed by the level head he's kept on this RfA, and he has assured me that his recent offensive edit summaries were meant jokingly. I've done the same myself (as has User:Babajobu, who I nominated not so long ago). MONGO can rest assured, though, that I'll be (metaphorically) defeaning him with the aid of a (metaphorical) bullhorn held (metaphorically) at close range if I imagine he doesn't show proper respect for non-Americans in the future ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Speaking of metaphors, if I'm doing the right deviation thing here, might as well take it the whole the way. With great trepidation, etc. El_C 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Support freestylefrappe 16:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fine to me. Shanes 20:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong affirmative action Support, a good, helpful user, and conservative rural Americans are an exotic species among admins. Babajobu 18:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note for the bureaucrat(s) looking at this RfA: This vote and the votes below it in this section were made after voting ended. --Idont Havaname 21:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support. I appreciate his handling of the talk page of George W. Bush; clearly one who survives in this environment will be comfortable in easier situations. Rama 21:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Izehar 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Support Derktar 02:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC).
- Support. Seems to have learned from past mistakes. --GraemeL (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. My experience with MONGO was via Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit, and various talk pages that spun off that, where he was consistently belligerent and confrontational with multiple editors (including myself). Moreover, much of his confrontation was around him pushing very POV political opinions. A look at MONGO's user talk page shows a lot of further rancor as well. (followup: MONGO's below answer shows a growth of maturity; however, additional evidence located by Mr. Tibbs is troubling too. I think less than 3 months of good interaction is not quite enough; I would support the nomination in another 3 months if those see good cooperation) Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I was actively involved in the AfD debate for WPWfem too, and I and MONGO were on opposing sides. Still, his arguments were good, and I haven't had further bad experience with him. The only person on the AfD debate I really disliked turned out to be a troll. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- There were post AFD issues that I hope MONGO will elaborate on below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- There were numerous trolls on that PfD(project AfD) and perhaps MONGO got caught in the heat of things over-reacted to legitimate users. Nevertheless, his agruments, as JIP noted were well-thought out. He is one of the most polite editors I have come across.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 18:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- There were post AFD issues that I hope MONGO will elaborate on below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I was actively involved in the AfD debate for WPWfem too, and I and MONGO were on opposing sides. Still, his arguments were good, and I haven't had further bad experience with him. The only person on the AfD debate I really disliked turned out to be a troll. — JIP | Talk 16:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm afraid I must object. When the WikiProject for Encyclopedic Merit was originally founded, MONGO spent a lot of time arguing (and edit warring) about which usernames were allowed on its membership roster, leading eventually to the page being protected. I don't find that attitude very constructive. Radiant_>|< 17:09, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- He was removing obvios IP vandal "members" with no other edit history or people who explained there membership by statements in opposition to the group. Perhaps the edit warring was worse than I thought...but I doubt it.Voice of All T|@|Esperanza 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit/Archive 2#MONGO vandalism for details. I really do mean repeatedly removing the names of established editors. Radiant_>|< 22:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- All of the people removed, by there comments there, where obviously against the project, so why did they "join" in the first place. I don't go over and join Moveon.org clubs and interest group sectors just because I oppose them. I can't say "I join and [tacitly] support this group because I disagree and oppose it". While I don't agree with edit warring over it, and it is a bit bold to remove names other than that IP troll, I can certainly see were he was coming from. Considering all of the "anti-censorship" argument venom, he likely saw this as a ploy ar the time, and not a good faith effort to join WfEM. I dont see this as a reason to vote oppose.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 23:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I can see where he was coming from, but the fact that he kept doing it despite being repeatedly told not to, by various people, does not speak well for him. Those people where not against the project, rather they had a different view of "encyclopedic merit" than Mongo did. I respect your opinion and I would appreciate it if you would respect mine. Radiant_>|< 23:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with that, but he is a changed man ;-). As for respecting others opinions, I don't mind someone voting oppose for this, but I just disagree with it...:-).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, ditto above objections. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. As above. This sort of edit war, especially when carried on by sockpuppets (84.67.79.63, 81.79.117.98, 84.68.242.172) to avoid breaking 3RR, does not inspire confidence. — Dan | Talk 02:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)- I agree that edit warring is bad, and I was wrong to do so. However, your accusation that I used a sock puppet account at any time is baseless and completely incorrect. I log in from two locations and one is IP 68.13.94.113 [67] and the other is IP 63.113.14.5 [68]. Both originate from Omaha, NE. U.S.A., which is where I live. IP 84.67.79.63 is from the U.K. [69] IP 81.79.117.98 is also from the U.K. [70], and IP 84.68.242.172 is as well [71]. If you still feel that I use or have used a sock puppet account, then by all means ask David Gerard to check me out. MONGO 04:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong oppose as per the reasons above. Mongo does not have the temperament for adminship. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Radiant. Too controversial for adminship at this time. Xoloz 05:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose our interaction is brief and limited, but the context was hostile on the part of MONGO, making unfounded accusations of disruptive behavior (the behavior in question was asking on talk pages for supporting evidence on the talk pages of interested parties). TheChief (PowWow) 21:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)- After recieving a response, I am removing my opposition. TheChief (PowWow) 19:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose per Radiant. --Ryan Delaney talk 06:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose -- A cursory glance at this user's article edit history reveals many destructive edits. Some of them even with inflammatory statements in the Edit Summary like: "It looks like foreigners and leftists wish to control this page....good luck!" [72]. Some other edits following this pattern: [73] [74] [75]. And it's not just the Bush article either, here are some more recent ones: [76] [77] -- Mr. Tibbs 07:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yikes...I might have to change to Weak Support or Neutral...that is very disturbing. I believe that he has apologized over edit warring over WfEM member lists, but this is another matter. Sheesh, he has to stop these kind of edit summaries.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 13:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)- I have looked through his contributions and it should be noted that he has not done anything like that in months. So I suppose Mr. Tibbs's issues are old news.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 17:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Disruptive actions in August are far too recent for me to support now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose,nothing to do with the decency/encyclopedic merit project this time, though Mr. Tibb's edit summaries above are very interesting. But my main reason is the only intervention by MONGO I've seen, in a dispute between User:172 and User:Silverback in October. I thought him unreasonable and biased then. He did aboutface in the end, seeming to become aware of the untenableness of his original position, but hardly in a gracious way. He used WP:AN in the "I don't have time to do the research but here's a thought anyway" (not a real quote) manner that the ArbCom has criticized in a recent case. Some examples: [78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88]. Here's the long tail of the WP:ANI conversation, on El C's page, where MONGO again defends his statements about "tit for tat" and his continuing absence of evidence: "I won't take a stand on who is right or wrong...just saw that there was some tit for tat...It's all part of the same bantering [sic] back and forth." Here's an apology for one particular, minor, comment, inlined in the noticeboard thread two days later (=rather hard to find). That's good, and was well-intentioned, I'm sure. But it isn't much. If I've left out anything of import I ask MONGO to tell me so. The praise in the Support section presumably refers to other cases; perhaps I just caught the user at a bad moment, and I will certainly review again if there's a second nomination some time from now. I have some sympathy, as he seemed to be rather short of time, but it seems to me an important principle that admins know to walk away from what they don't really have the time gain an understanding of. Do nothing rather than do harm. "Let somebody else fix it" is a great wiki principle. Apologies for the length, but I felt I needed to explain this vote. Bishonen|talk 19:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC).- Bishonen, I was trying to keep 172 and Silverback from arguing and it appears I did a lousy job as an Rfc was quickly filed against Silverback right after that. I told Silverback to "ceasefire" and I tried to get those two to simply leave each other alone for a while. I think what I have learned in Wikipedia is that if two warring parties step back, even if one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong, that maybe there is a way to reunite after the steam blows off and compromise. I later talked to 172 here (with his responses being here) and suggested mediation and to see if there was anyway to avoid a long drawn out series of Rfc's, and then probable arbitration. The conversion between 172 and myself, ended most pleasently I thought. In all honesty, as a completely outside third party, I was only trying to see if I could play mediator...I should have just let them go about their business. Do good faith attempts to try and resolve hostilities between two users go punished around this place. I recognize it may appear that I took a stand but I was only trying to demostrate that it does take two to have a war...and two to make a peace.--MONGO 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not so impressed by Mongo's response here, but as El C says below, there's a much different one on my Talk, and I've been giving this opposition some thought since that was posted. If a disgraceful lefty like El C can withdraw his Oppose, I can withdraw mine. Bishonen|talk 11:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC).
- P. S. /me retreats hastily in hail of rotten vegetables. That was a joke about El C being disgraceful! I love him! Sheesh! Now I know how MONGO feels! --Bishonen|talk 11:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- *Kissess* I sorta want him to win now. He's deeply reactionary, but he likes mountains, if that makes any sense... El_C 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- P. S. /me retreats hastily in hail of rotten vegetables. That was a joke about El C being disgraceful! I love him! Sheesh! Now I know how MONGO feels! --Bishonen|talk 11:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not so impressed by Mongo's response here, but as El C says below, there's a much different one on my Talk, and I've been giving this opposition some thought since that was posted. If a disgraceful lefty like El C can withdraw his Oppose, I can withdraw mine. Bishonen|talk 11:46, 20 November 2005 (UTC).
- Bishonen, I was trying to keep 172 and Silverback from arguing and it appears I did a lousy job as an Rfc was quickly filed against Silverback right after that. I told Silverback to "ceasefire" and I tried to get those two to simply leave each other alone for a while. I think what I have learned in Wikipedia is that if two warring parties step back, even if one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong, that maybe there is a way to reunite after the steam blows off and compromise. I later talked to 172 here (with his responses being here) and suggested mediation and to see if there was anyway to avoid a long drawn out series of Rfc's, and then probable arbitration. The conversion between 172 and myself, ended most pleasently I thought. In all honesty, as a completely outside third party, I was only trying to see if I could play mediator...I should have just let them go about their business. Do good faith attempts to try and resolve hostilities between two users go punished around this place. I recognize it may appear that I took a stand but I was only trying to demostrate that it does take two to have a war...and two to make a peace.--MONGO 19:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I'm troubled by the concerns brought up by multiple users. Gamaliel 19:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose- offensive username. Astrotrain 21:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Uhh, didn't you ever see Blazing Saddles? At worst, Mongo's making fun of himself. --kizzle 21:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Very funny, but, seriosuly, that's not your real reason is it? If so, I would hope the bureacrat will not count that as an oppose. I wouldn't even change the counter to reflect this oppose vote (as it stnads at least). Please explain.Gator (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- What more explanation do you need? MONGO is an offensive term, and not an appropiate username for an admin. My oppose vote is genuine, and should not be discounted. Astrotrain 13:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the stated reason for this oppose vote is silly. But no sillier than the stated support from Borisblue (who points out that some questionable behavior is from January, which tries to insinuate away all the links to edits in August). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ooh, to clarify, I meant that some of the diffs go back to Jan. I know the most recent problems come from August (still a long time), but the fact that you're digging up dirt on him from 10 months ago is just unwarranted IMHO. A lot changes happen in 10 months. Borisblue 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying, Borisblue. I did not find the January diffs myself, but I can see their relevance. If it was only during a "bad week" in August that MONGO edited with excessive rancor, that would be a simple glitch. But if he had done similar things much earlier as well (but it seems like only intermittently), that puts context on the August edits. I entirely agree that MONGO has been polite and respectful since early September. To my mind, 2.5 continuous months is not quite enough good behavior for adminship (after earlier problems), but 6 months would be—in fact, MONGO and I had a very cordial discussion of this on my user talk page. My personal 6 month standard is completely unofficial, but it is roughly the guideline I have in mind for my personal oppose vote. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 00:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ooh, to clarify, I meant that some of the diffs go back to Jan. I know the most recent problems come from August (still a long time), but the fact that you're digging up dirt on him from 10 months ago is just unwarranted IMHO. A lot changes happen in 10 months. Borisblue 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- I am making fun of myself! But actually a few buddies called me Mongo as a kid due to my size. I'm 6'7" and 275 (though, of course not that big then) and the movie Blazing Saddles was a big hit way back then. Anyhoo.--MONGO 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Very funny, but, seriosuly, that's not your real reason is it? If so, I would hope the bureacrat will not count that as an oppose. I wouldn't even change the counter to reflect this oppose vote (as it stnads at least). Please explain.Gator (talk) 21:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Uhh, didn't you ever see Blazing Saddles? At worst, Mongo's making fun of himself. --kizzle 21:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. Enough volume of troubling concerns raised that makes me not comfortable with MONGO's promotion at this time. A few more months of trouble free editing and I'm sure you'll be a shoe in. - Taxman Talk 15:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. "Foreigners" can edit here too. Smit 16:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC) After some explanations that he was joking at certain points, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and withdraw my opposition. Smit 02:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. The whole Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit thing just scares me - I'm having trouble seeing past what appear to be bad faith edits and opinions that relate to this project and spill over into the 'pedia proper. Sorry. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
15.I probably would not have voted (even notwithstanding my own interaction with MONGO which Bishonen outlined above, not only since I was the one who temporarily? suspended it, but largely in light of a good introspective response recently on her talk page), buthighly disturbing edit summaries from Aug. are too recent for me.I have little doubt that if he fails this nomination, he will win the next one.I am troubled that someone could think so parochially, even if they manage to hide that they do (in which case, we wouldn't know).That said, work in the area of (American) national parks is highly commendable (I would have liked more of my counterpart oppose voters to acknowledge this to his credit) and is endearing to myself, personally. I've been to well-over half the states in the U.S. and the national parks have always been and remain the highlight for me on such trips. His measured conduct throughout this RfA has been impressive. El_C 23:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC) — MONGO explained to me that this was meant as a joke (highly untactcful as it may be), and that he dosen't actually think in such xenophobic terms. Thus, withdraw my opposition. El_C 08:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. It seems that, for the most part, when MONGO comes to my attention, it's been for the wrong reasons. That could be that he edits under my radar much of the time, but the other oppose votes above suggest this is not the case. The edit summaries from August cast a long, dark shadow over the time since then, and I'm not yet certain that enough water has passed under enough bridges to lend my support at present: any editor with that in their past, and the misbehviour on the project does, imo, need to pass a noticeably higher bar before my fears are satisfactorily laid to rest. One point in particular: do not get involved in situations unless you are prepared to do all the necessary legwork — it looks bad, feels bad and, as turned out here, doesn't usually work. Still, I'm sure there's plenty to learn from in this RfA, so a few more months solid, sound editing and good-things-on-the-radar should be in the offing. -Splashtalk 03:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose Managing to be civil and measured for one week during the RfA doesn't excuse previous actions. Proto t c 10:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose per Redvers and Radiant, and I generally agree with Carbonite's past reason for opposing. One week of good behavior is rather easy to do, but I'd like to see MONGO in the trenches for a few more months before supporting, particularly in light of his involvement with Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit (the AfD for that brought a lot of concerns over censorship, and WP:NOT censored. I was among the editors that said that the existence of that WikiProject went against our policies.). Also, removing established editors from a WikiProject if they have listed themselves there is wrong, and borders on vandalism. --Idont Havaname 20:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- Note: I've struck out my vote because I voted after the voting ended (so did the voter above me, and presumably several others). It was my mistake; this RfA was still at the main page of WP:RfA at the time that I had voted, and I didn't notice when the closing time was. (At any rate, if this RfA were still open I would have switched to neutral based on a message that MONGO had left on my talk page.) --Idont Havaname 21:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral
Evolving, Please see question 4 below. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)Oppose Dodged my questions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Neutral "I was wrong to remove names" was actually not in your initial response to question 4, which led me to believe you were defending the practice. I'll happily bygones the incident, now. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- What exactly is strong neutral, not that I mind it...:-)?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- I have strong feeling about this situation, but cannot determine which of my strong feelings are correct. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- What exactly is strong neutral, not that I mind it...:-)?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 01:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- "Strong support offered." MARMOT 00:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
- Neutral. Yikes. I'm very concerned about those edit summaries, and bishonen also brings up some very interesting points. I personally don't know enough about MONGO to vote support or oppose either way, and I'll be upfront: I'm only looking at the votes and diffs of the supporters/opposers. I will keep a neutral stance for the moment, but as stated earlier, I'm concerned about those diffs above. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutral. I was seriously considering supporting, until I read the oppose votes. User:Bishonen raises some good points (do we really need admins who aren't willing to do the work themselves?), but the deal-breaker is those edit summaries, particularly this one. I realise it was quite a while ago – otherwise I'd be voting oppose right now– but I'm far from convinced that the ignorant, idiotic mindset that would describe other good-faith editors on a supposedly international website as "foreigners" is the sort of thing that could vanish overnight. Has MONGO grown up, or simply learned not to say certain things that he still believes? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. It's obvious that MONGO has made huge strides since he first joined Wikipedia. I think he's conducted himself very well during this RfA. However, many of the diffs provided by oppose voters above are too recent for me to support. I'm a strong believer that a "clear the air" RfA is often very beneficial for users whose past may have some blemishes. Assuming there are no incidents in the next few months, I will support any future RfA. Carbonite | Talk 14:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)I've been impressed enough with MONGO's conduct during this RfA to withdraw my opposition. Carbonite | Talk 18:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Comments
- I'd like to say one thing. Even though I nominated him, if this rfa was going on any time before July or August, i'd probably be a Strong Oppose. He was a Right Wing POV Warrior just like I was a Left Wing POV Warrior in our collective early edits. However, it's my opinion that the WFD imbroglio changed him(I was there and voted strongly against it.), which is best evidenced by this thread and that link I put above. I don't know about anyone else, but in my opinion the most liberal thing anyone can do is sow the seeds of peace whenever the opportunity arises, and despite any other views or disagreements we might have in the future,it's my view that MONGO did that post-August. Karmafist 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- As this is shaping up to be a very close RfA, I've gone and done a bit more thorough look into MONGO's article edit history. I found some interesting edits to the Ray Nagin article in September: [89] [90] [91] [92]. He mention's "foreign newspaper" in his edit summary of the first two edits. I also took a look at his talkpage edits around that time: [93] I also wanted a to take a deeper look into the reasons behind MONGO's August 2003 Invasion of Iraq edits that I cited earlier. Here are his other edits to that article at that time: [94] [95]. And apparently MONGO has made no discussion on the talkpage of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq article around that time, however I did find some talkpage edits from earlier in April: [96][97]. I have also found some interesting October talkpage edits: [98] [99]. MONGO also has quite a lot of good edits to National Park articles and vandalism reversion edits. But the Ray Nagin article edits and some of the talkpage cites appear to me to only reaffirm my Strong Opposition to this RfA. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I especially like this citation you provide, in which every respondant was in agreement with me.[100]. Mr. Tibbs, I fully respect your vote of "Strong Opposition", and again explain that you are taking my edits out of context. I use the term foreign newspaper when discussing Ray Nagin only in that it is an opinion piece, and not a news piece and that since I am not particularily in favor of opinion pieces unless they are called as such, I see such opinion discussion in a non U.S. newspaper as having even less "encyclopedic merit" than I would in an American newpaper when in discussion on an American topic. I am not a bigot, nor am I opposed in any ay to "foreigners"...my girlfriend Ivana is Croatian. The cites above in which I say "foreigners" as a joke on Rama (which I don't think he thought were "funny" either) were absolutely an attempt to humor him since the two of us had had more heated arguments back in January during discussions in the George W Bush pages. Trust me on this one, I usually respect the international press a lot more than I do the corporate led American press anyway. I just wwant to make it clear that I am most assuredly not opposed to non Americans. I was on the side defending the Ray nagin article against a concerted attempt by a series of strong POV attacks by those utilizing sockpuppet accounts and doing all they could to create an attack page on Ray Nagin. The talk pages for that article clearly show this to be true. I regret my choice of "jokes" and it was wrong for me to assume that others would find them funny. They were definitely in bad taste.MONGO 08:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- What a mess that article was at the time, nonstop. Unincidentally, I've just reverted it, a full ten days after the prior edit. :) El_C 13:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, I think it was one of the more heavily POV pushes I've seen by what may have possibly been paid political webspammers. Interestingly, their "evidence" was really weak, especially when confronted by Wikipedians!MONGO 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I thought: they were payed. It was just so unremitting yet monolithic. Seems the pro-Nagin forces didn't have access to such funds (→ note that this is all part of the indoctrination process on the part of yours truly!). El_C 14:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Yep, I think it was one of the more heavily POV pushes I've seen by what may have possibly been paid political webspammers. Interestingly, their "evidence" was really weak, especially when confronted by Wikipedians!MONGO 13:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- MONGO, if it was a joke, why did you make legimate spelling corrections in the middle of that series of edits? Why did you tag the article as POV at the same time as well? Here are all of MONGO's edits to that article in August arranged in chronological order from past to most recent: [101][102][103][104] [105]. All that seems to be a lot of trouble to go to for a "joke". Honestly, how can an edit with the summary: "Article suffers from systemic bias" be part of an attempt at humor? And more than that, is an article's integrity expendable to you for the sake of humor? Tagging an article as POV or inserting comments as a "joke" strikes me as very irresponsible. ( Doubleposted here: [106] ) -- Mr. Tibbs 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I was also questioned about the wording here [107] and I should have made a better examination of the wording used. It is a valid point that no one can "know" what other people "think" but my point was that, {and I still believe this to be true), there are speeches and legislation that were passed, some of which was through the United Nations, that Saddam Hussein was indeed a threat to the stability of the region. I don't think the choice of wording was best, and I could have made a better argument then I know. Repeated UN resolutions and the continuation and even the occasional escalation of actions regarding the "no-fly" zone and sanctions against Saddam and his rule also coorelate with conceptualizations that Saddam was a threat. I'll certainly not argue now that he was capable of launching a true military attack against the U.S., yet I agree with the legislation passed during the 1990's and early into the 21st century such as UN Security Council Resolution 1441, that Saddam was a continuing "problem". As far as inserting the NPOV tag, I should have discussed that in the associated talk page, at least after I did it and explained why I did it. A contenious issue regarding something like the Iraq War and George Bush should always have a heavy engagement in talk before making such changes, or at least after. As I stated, Rama, I am sure, saw no humor in my editing and my choice of word play was provocative, but it wasn't filled with malice in any way. Susequent spelling corrections are due to habit, perhaps a problem with precision, or because I may be anal about word choices? An article such as the one cited is going to have some strong opinions associated with it at times, mine being one of them. I won't be an apologist for the 2003 Iraq War, but I will for my choice of wording at that time and for the misconception that my choice of wording seems to have fostered in some that I am or seem to be opposed to people who are not from the U.S., which is certainly not the case. It should be noted that some of those edits were intended to be a joke, exaggeration, preposterous to a degree and you're right, article integrity shouldn't have suffered just because I wanted to play a game of sorts. I will state that I did have a problem with the choice of words "create closure", "humiliated" and "failed" and saw them as being extremely POV and I did counterargue them with the one edit, though I certainly could have done a better job explaining why. Are you questioning my right to refute such unreferenced passages or my right to be bold?--MONGO 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- What a mess that article was at the time, nonstop. Unincidentally, I've just reverted it, a full ten days after the prior edit. :) El_C 13:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I especially like this citation you provide, in which every respondant was in agreement with me.[100]. Mr. Tibbs, I fully respect your vote of "Strong Opposition", and again explain that you are taking my edits out of context. I use the term foreign newspaper when discussing Ray Nagin only in that it is an opinion piece, and not a news piece and that since I am not particularily in favor of opinion pieces unless they are called as such, I see such opinion discussion in a non U.S. newspaper as having even less "encyclopedic merit" than I would in an American newpaper when in discussion on an American topic. I am not a bigot, nor am I opposed in any ay to "foreigners"...my girlfriend Ivana is Croatian. The cites above in which I say "foreigners" as a joke on Rama (which I don't think he thought were "funny" either) were absolutely an attempt to humor him since the two of us had had more heated arguments back in January during discussions in the George W Bush pages. Trust me on this one, I usually respect the international press a lot more than I do the corporate led American press anyway. I just wwant to make it clear that I am most assuredly not opposed to non Americans. I was on the side defending the Ray nagin article against a concerted attempt by a series of strong POV attacks by those utilizing sockpuppet accounts and doing all they could to create an attack page on Ray Nagin. The talk pages for that article clearly show this to be true. I regret my choice of "jokes" and it was wrong for me to assume that others would find them funny. They were definitely in bad taste.MONGO 08:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I find it a little hard to swallow that those awful edit summaries were actually a very funny joke. Why has this reason taken...3 months...to turn up? -Splashtalk 03:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
- Splash, I never said they funny, they were intended more as a "rib" in the side to other users. They were poor choices of words. Since no one else appears to have complained about them till now is why it has taken 3 months for them to be addressed. Aside from the comment on my talk page, which questioned one passage, no one else seems to have been greatly offended, Though I have yet to converse with anyone else that may have been offended. As I stated before, I was wrong to use such edit summaries and to give anyone the false impression that I am some kind of ugly American. I think it is good that Mr. Tibbs has brought these issues regarding edit summaries and my choice of editorial quality to my attention, and I wish now that I had done a better job choosing my words and providing citable sources for my refutation of commentary.--MONGO 06:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
A few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
- 1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.
- A. I've been doing some RC patrol and routinely get beat out on reverts of vandalism therefore the Admin tools would help me better contribute in this area and fight vandalism. The ability to speedy delete nonsense articles and block repeated vandals would be of great help as well. I would also particpate in closing out AFD's ensuring I always follow the rule of rough consensus as a bare minimum.
- 2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- A. Though I have yet to bring an article up to featured status, I have started over 75 articles, almost all of them regarding areas of land management. I suppose I am most proud of Shoshone National Forest, though I still have plans to greatly expand it in detail. There is so much yet to do! I also believe that I helped for some time to bring the George W Bush article more in line with WP:NPOV policies.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A. I have been known to come across as somewhat combative, especially in my earlier edits, but my wording then was always more abrasive than my true sentiments. I feel as though everyone I have met here is my friend to some degree and truly believe that the vast majority of editors here are all trying to do the right thing. I have had conflicts with some editors such while working on the George W Bush article yet feel that even in this case, some who I may have been harsh with and still have disagreement with in terms have content, are people that, like me are trying to make the articles as neutral and informative as possible. I try and make an effort to extend an olive branch as often as possible.
- 4. The conflict at Decency/Encyclopedic Merit Debacle (DEMD) was long and difficult, so I have a long multipart question-info request. I am hard-pressed to determine my vote, but I am certain it will have "Strong" in front of it.
- 1. Briefly describe the genesis and timeline of the DEMD.
- 2. Briefly describe the major arguments of the major players to the DEMD. If categorizing players into constituencies helps, please do so.
- 3. Briefly describe actions taken by the major players/constituencies to the DEMD, and categorize from your current perspective which of those actions were either A. Serious Wrongs, B. Minor Wrongs, C. Irellevent or D. Helpful to the Encyclopedia.
- 4. Would you have done anything differently if you could turn back the clock to the start of the DEMD? What? Why?
- 5. What do you think my answer to question 4 would be?
- Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- These questions (with the possible exception of 4.4) are quite outrageous and improper, and I would strongly urge MONGO to ignore them. This RfA is about whether or not we can trust MONGO with admin tools, it is not about 'DEMD'. Why should MONGO provide a history lesson? And why on earth would MONGO want to describe the arguments of other users, or categorize users into consitituencies, or pass value judgements on their actions?? (THe last would be quite impproper.) Why should he second guess Hipocrite's views?? What type of agenda lies behind this? I'm damned if I know. Doc ask? 16:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I will clarify my questions after MONGO answeres them or refuses to do so. Understanding and passing value judgements on actions accurately is, in my opinion, central to being a good admin. My adjenda is to gain additional information about an incident that MONGO neglected to discuss in the standard questions. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable to hope that MONGO has learned from (one of) the long conflicts he was an instigator of. If answers suggest that behavior was a thing of the past, I might be convinced (similar to Karmafist's support vote). Answers to questions like Hipocrite's might help show this. The fact MONGO has political opinions I disagree with is not at all a problem (many good admins do), it's the fact he used to let those political opinions bias his editing behavior and turn towards belligerence towards disagreeing editors. But as per my oppose vote, I have not had contact with MONGO for several months, so he may have grown out of that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- I told myself, I would not argue against oppose votes and am am not going to do so. Lulu and Hypocrite are fully entitled to their right to voice their opinion and from those opinions I can only learn the best way for me to contribute to Wikipedia in the most pro-active manner possible. I need to clarify that I do not consider myself to be a "right-winger" but I altogether understand why many others may see it that way, especially if they come from outside the U.S. where politics, especially lately, have been less conservative. I was a later arrival to the WikiProject for Decency and was surprised to see that other members had been tagging articles and images with a "decency" tag...something I openly stated that I was opposed to doing. I clearly stated that I wanted to both change the scope and direction of the project and as soon as the Vfd for the project ended with "no concensus" I commenced altering the scope of the project [108], [109] I then changed the title to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit [110]. I had hoped, using a basis of a few of the aspects of the original decency project, to develop more of a think tank or discussion group which could iron out the best path to continue to ensure that Wikipedia would become, or at least would develop into, the most reliable web based encyclopedia there is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was initially in support of my title change and attempts to redirect the focus of the project. There was an argument between numerous editors what this new scope should be and over who should remain as members in light of the fact that the project had changed, both in title and direction and some of the previous members had signed on in what appeared to be, from my vantage point, an attempt to play spoiler. I did remove a few names from the members list, yet stopped doing so when asked by one member. I was removed by unknown editors too [111], [112]. I think that Lulu and I both withdrew from the "battle" because we are both mature enough to know when to stop and when to recognize when a project is essentially dead. My last edit was to try once again to take the project in the direction it needed to go, but I believe that there already is a similar area which is more in keeping with my sentiments anyway, without the controversies! I think that a few users here deserved an answer regarding these issues but continue to urge all those who vote to do so based on their true sentiments so that if this nomination fails, I can learn from it and become a better contributor.--MONGO 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- This non-answer did not address my concerns. "You have violated your administrative powers with this protection of the wrong version" was said in all seriousness by MONGO. You didn't stop because someone asked you to -> [113] [114] you stopped because the page got protected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I was asked by Zoe to stop removing names from the project membership [115] and explained why I was removing names to her here[116]. She reverted my removal just prior to her warning to me. I did not remove anyone's name after she did her revert. However, you removed Noitall [117] and then another user [118] were then reverted by Noitall [119] and then Noitall struck your name out [120] you then reverted him [121] and it was after this edit war you were engaged in with Noitall that Radiant! then protected the page [122]. No doubt I was combative, and I was wrong for being so. I argued with Zoe about the purpose of her membership, but did not remove her name or anyone else's after she asked me to stop. The page protection was 4 days after I last removed anyone's name and was after you and Noitall were edit warring over the issue. I am disappointed that I have been accused of sockpuppet use to avoid 3RR and that you have wrongfully stated that I only stopped removing names because of the page protection. I stopped because Zoe asked me to do so. Please provide proof to the contrary.--MONGO 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is a redlink. You were told to stop removing names here. The page was protected to stop you and a bunch of anonymous IPs from removing names here. I did not remove noitall, as a reading of my diff would make clear.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I did remove names 7 hours prior to the page being protected at that time. In the meantime, you and Lulu were combating an anon or series of anons and then the page was protected, more than 10 edits later, none of which were mine.[123] I stated above that you had removed Noitall, what I meant was that you removed his comment. After only a three hour page protection, the page was unprotected and that is when an anon removed my name twice as I mentioned above. I do not know what your redlined link Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is in reference to. I thought we had buried the hatchet and I do not understand how I can better answer your questions. I am disappointed that you are still angry with me about this as that is the last thing I would want. As I stated, I was wrong to remove names from the project and I am sorry I was rude to you and the others I offended with this action.--MONGO 15:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Heh, he meant you're the one on the spot, not him. El_C 12:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- I did remove names 7 hours prior to the page being protected at that time. In the meantime, you and Lulu were combating an anon or series of anons and then the page was protected, more than 10 edits later, none of which were mine.[123] I stated above that you had removed Noitall, what I meant was that you removed his comment. After only a three hour page protection, the page was unprotected and that is when an anon removed my name twice as I mentioned above. I do not know what your redlined link Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is in reference to. I thought we had buried the hatchet and I do not understand how I can better answer your questions. I am disappointed that you are still angry with me about this as that is the last thing I would want. As I stated, I was wrong to remove names from the project and I am sorry I was rude to you and the others I offended with this action.--MONGO 15:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- Requests for adminship/Hipocrite is a redlink. You were told to stop removing names here. The page was protected to stop you and a bunch of anonymous IPs from removing names here. I did not remove noitall, as a reading of my diff would make clear.Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I was asked by Zoe to stop removing names from the project membership [115] and explained why I was removing names to her here[116]. She reverted my removal just prior to her warning to me. I did not remove anyone's name after she did her revert. However, you removed Noitall [117] and then another user [118] were then reverted by Noitall [119] and then Noitall struck your name out [120] you then reverted him [121] and it was after this edit war you were engaged in with Noitall that Radiant! then protected the page [122]. No doubt I was combative, and I was wrong for being so. I argued with Zoe about the purpose of her membership, but did not remove her name or anyone else's after she asked me to stop. The page protection was 4 days after I last removed anyone's name and was after you and Noitall were edit warring over the issue. I am disappointed that I have been accused of sockpuppet use to avoid 3RR and that you have wrongfully stated that I only stopped removing names because of the page protection. I stopped because Zoe asked me to do so. Please provide proof to the contrary.--MONGO 14:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- This non-answer did not address my concerns. "You have violated your administrative powers with this protection of the wrong version" was said in all seriousness by MONGO. You didn't stop because someone asked you to -> [113] [114] you stopped because the page got protected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
- I told myself, I would not argue against oppose votes and am am not going to do so. Lulu and Hypocrite are fully entitled to their right to voice their opinion and from those opinions I can only learn the best way for me to contribute to Wikipedia in the most pro-active manner possible. I need to clarify that I do not consider myself to be a "right-winger" but I altogether understand why many others may see it that way, especially if they come from outside the U.S. where politics, especially lately, have been less conservative. I was a later arrival to the WikiProject for Decency and was surprised to see that other members had been tagging articles and images with a "decency" tag...something I openly stated that I was opposed to doing. I clearly stated that I wanted to both change the scope and direction of the project and as soon as the Vfd for the project ended with "no concensus" I commenced altering the scope of the project [108], [109] I then changed the title to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit [110]. I had hoped, using a basis of a few of the aspects of the original decency project, to develop more of a think tank or discussion group which could iron out the best path to continue to ensure that Wikipedia would become, or at least would develop into, the most reliable web based encyclopedia there is. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters was initially in support of my title change and attempts to redirect the focus of the project. There was an argument between numerous editors what this new scope should be and over who should remain as members in light of the fact that the project had changed, both in title and direction and some of the previous members had signed on in what appeared to be, from my vantage point, an attempt to play spoiler. I did remove a few names from the members list, yet stopped doing so when asked by one member. I was removed by unknown editors too [111], [112]. I think that Lulu and I both withdrew from the "battle" because we are both mature enough to know when to stop and when to recognize when a project is essentially dead. My last edit was to try once again to take the project in the direction it needed to go, but I believe that there already is a similar area which is more in keeping with my sentiments anyway, without the controversies! I think that a few users here deserved an answer regarding these issues but continue to urge all those who vote to do so based on their true sentiments so that if this nomination fails, I can learn from it and become a better contributor.--MONGO 19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable to hope that MONGO has learned from (one of) the long conflicts he was an instigator of. If answers suggest that behavior was a thing of the past, I might be convinced (similar to Karmafist's support vote). Answers to questions like Hipocrite's might help show this. The fact MONGO has political opinions I disagree with is not at all a problem (many good admins do), it's the fact he used to let those political opinions bias his editing behavior and turn towards belligerence towards disagreeing editors. But as per my oppose vote, I have not had contact with MONGO for several months, so he may have grown out of that. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Requests for bureaucratship
Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make other users admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here. They can also change the user name of any other user. The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above, but is generally by request only. The expectation for bureaucratship is higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications. Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before nominating themselves.
Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions. Vote sections and boilerplate questions for candidates can be inserted using {{subst:Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Candidate questions}}. New bureaucrats and failed nominations are recorded at Wikipedia:Recently created bureaucrats.
Please add new requests at the top of this section immediately below (and again, please update the headers when voting)
Requests for self-de-adminship and confirmation of adminship
Requests to relinquish adminship are granted on request and may be made at m:Requests for permissions. Do not place such requests here because the stewards will not act on them unless they are placed at m:Requests for permissions.
If you wish to have the community confirm or re-affirm your adminship, the correct process is:
- Voluntarily relinquish adminship by placing your request at m:Requests for permissions
- Apply for adminship here utilizing the usual procedure.
If you have concerns about specific aspects of your administrative performance, consider posting a request for review on the Administrators' Noticeboard or employing a Request for comment.
Related requests
- Requests for permissions on other Wikimedia projects
- Requests for adminship or bureaucratship on meta
- Requests for self-de-adminship on any project can be made at m:Requests for permissions.
- Requests to mark a user as a bot can be made at m:Requests for permissions following consensus at wikipedia talk:bots that the bot should be allowed to run.
- Requests for comment on possible misuse of sysop privileges
If this page doesn't update properly, either clear your cache or click here to purge the server's cache. en:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
- ^ Candidates were restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed.
- ^ Voting was restricted to editors with an extended confirmed account following the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I § Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.
- ^ The initial two discussion-only days are a trial measure agreed on following Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial). It applies to the first five RfAs opened on or after 24 March 2024, excluding those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, or until 25 September 2024 – whichever is first.
- ^ The community determined this in a May 2019 RfC.
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
- ^ Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 17: Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors