Wikipedia:Administrators/Archive2
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Promoted
[edit] User:J Di - request 2
Final vote count: Support: 7/Neutral: 5/Oppose: 2 - 78% support
In the interests of fairness, I'm not sure J Di's en.wiki activity applies. Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- In the interests of transparency I'm pretty sure they do. MatthewFenton 14:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been nearly three months since my last nomination and hopefully I'll get more support this time round. I've helped out more in the Wikipedia namespace, and for those of you that care about edit count, I have made 2272 edits. J Di 15:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Supporting votes
- Support Archer7 - talk 16:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
- Support --M7 00:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support FrancoGG ( talk ) 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- You beat me at your own nomination! I was going to support you! Uh oh, I gave it away. I was going to nominate you, rather...-- Tdxiang 09:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support. He has been an experienced, hard working editor, and I trust that he will continue to do so as an admin.--TBCΦtalk? 17:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Support Psh, how'd I miss this? PTO 04:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Switching, in light of the points raised below. PTO 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)- Support - What I said last nomination still applies; they have shown themselves to be worthy contributors, active at fighting vandals. Providing sysop access for thisa user would perhaps solve the provlem User:Creol outlined above. --Eptalon 13:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- support no reason for contra ;) --vector ^_^ (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neutral votes
- Neutral. Looking at this and this, I was starting to think he already was one... Might as well, just make it official I guess as he already seems to have usage of the tools.-- Creol(talk) 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
SupportNeutral-- switched my vote too, per Creol's reason. Blockinblox - talk 14:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)- Neutral I've seen J Di do some good work around here, but per civility I don't know if I can fully support. Browne34 16:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I'm a real concensus-guy, and it appears the community doesn't support giving this user the extra tools he has requested. Anthonycfc [T • C] 22:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you're in the neutral section, but you support? :P Majorly (o rly?) 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I would originally believe that the editor should receive the sysop tools, although I would be cautious in doing so; unfortunately, the concerns in this section (not to mention oppose) are of far to great a volume to support. Administrators require trust from the community and while that trust should not be sourced from other wikis, it is clear there is still bad blood at simple - an unacceptable trait in an administrator charged with protecting the Wiki through blocks, page protects and deletions. Anthonycfc [T • C] 00:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you're in the neutral section, but you support? :P Majorly (o rly?) 00:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opposing votes
Strongly oppose Auroranorth 10:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC) <note>: 0 edit in ns-0 --M7 13:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)- Strong oppose a nasty, bullying attitude on the English Wikipedia, plus personal hatred of me and he refused to explain why. I don't believe he will abuse the tools, but don't think he'll use them beneficially either; he's burning out on en and I fear that'll happen here. Majorly (o rly?) 00:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've never said that either. Do you all mind not speaking on my behalf? J Di 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Never said what? Refusing to explain why you decided you didn't want to speak to me again? I don't believe you ever did. Majorly (o rly?) 18:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've never said that either. Do you all mind not speaking on my behalf? J Di 17:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Strongly oppose - J Di has a disgusting attitude which I have observed at en.wiki. I have no doubt he will abuse the power for his benefit. J Di is unstable (check his en.wiki user page deletion log). MatthewFenton 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)- Vote not counted - no other actions except to oppose this RfA Archer7 - talk 18:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)- Note that I do not actively edit here, I am however active at en.wiki, which is where I know J Di from. MatthewFenton 01:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose I too will have to oppose this RfA. I really can't trust someone who is unstable (see his excessive deletion/restoration of his userpage). He's had a total attitude change, and has become a totally different person. For these instability issues, I cannot support this RfA. Nishkid64 18:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Do you folks mind giving examples? Thank you.-- Tdxiang 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Log for his user page
- Dismisses a user's request with a vague "Good for you"
- Dismisses the fact he unlocked the George W. Bush page, despite it being vandalised earlier that day
- Reverted comment with no explanation whatsoever then attacked another user asking why.
- Inappropriate block threat
- Curt, abrasive replies to an otherwise polite and civil (new) user
- Refusal to respond to a reasonable request
- Comment: Do you folks mind giving examples? Thank you.-- Tdxiang 08:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hope they help. I know they aren't on this wiki, but no doubt that attitude will transfer here as well. Majorly (o rly?) 11:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Basically J Di is "playing the game", I have no doubt he will be rude and abusive here as well. MatthewFenton 11:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion on those links is that a lot of it isn't really that serious, and I think his rather distinctive attitude may be causing a few people to misinterpret his comments. That could of course become a problem over here. The block threat was inappropriate, and there are obviously some civility issues at times, but I seriously doubt whether it's going to actually become a problem over here. Archer7 - talk 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Those reasons precisely are why he is an inappropriate candidate. Majorly (o rly?) 12:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- My opinion on those links is that a lot of it isn't really that serious, and I think his rather distinctive attitude may be causing a few people to misinterpret his comments. That could of course become a problem over here. The block threat was inappropriate, and there are obviously some civility issues at times, but I seriously doubt whether it's going to actually become a problem over here. Archer7 - talk 12:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I choose not to have a user page, but for a while I was uncertain. The last deleted revision of w:User:J Di that I considered keeping was on January 15 2007, a month and a half ago. I have since deleted and had deleted by others recreations of the page, and it is now protected to prevent further recreation.
- Wikipedia's civility policy says that editors must act civilly towards each other, but it doesn't say that they need to like each other. If you look at the edit history of Template talk:Spam, you'll see that I didn't start the incivilities (I know, it's incredibly minor), and at least some of you will be able to understand that it is difficult to remain 100% civil all of the time, especially when it requires effort. I didn't dismiss the user's request, I looked into it and, a few days later, attempted to resolve the issue.
- Simple answer to the revert on my user talk page is, everybody is allowed to remove content from their own user talk page so I didn't do anything wrong. As for the incivility that followed, again there is no policy saying I have to like everybody and if you see other interactions between myself and Majorly since our friendship broke down, you'll see that for him to get involved in my problems unnecessarily and a generally vindictive attitude towards me is the norm, even if it is likely to create incivility (see this discussion; my user page deletion log, this discussion and Majorly's comment here; this discussion; and this partial posting of private logs that misrepresented a situation). I don't want to turn this into a bigger mess than it already is with this comment, and I have tried to stay out of Majorly's way for a while now, but there is no "personal hatred" and any recent problems between us were instigated by him.
- I did not think the block "threat" was unnecessary; the user I "threatened" had moved a page using copy and paste twice and my "threat" was preventative, so that they wouldn't do it again. The user was not blocked.
- Shaggy9872004 and I have had many previous interactions, and I wouldn't have called them a new user at the time. I was civil with them and tried to help them, but the user was quite uncivil to me before I was the slightest bit uncivil towards them. See this discussion; this discussion, which shows that I am not the only person that had a problem with the user; these diffs, which show the user reporting me and another administrator on en:Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; and the one month long block that they received.
I'll admit there is occasional incivility, but it's only in a few cases. In the large majority of cases, I am able to remain civil, and I have never used administrator rights to benefit myself (except in my own user space). That said, I can understand that these comments are likely to change people's minds, and this one here may well have an adverse effect, but at the end of the day me not being an administrator here isn't going to be the end of the world and I can always try again at a later date, when people's opinion of me have changed for the better. J Di 13:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- I seriously think you do a great job here, and I guess you'd make a good admin too. However, we've had our differences, and I stick by the points I raised. Just try to be a little more politer to people you dislike, and it won't reflect so badly on the good work you do. Majorly (o rly?) 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - Some of the links above worry me. Administrative rights do not give you any special status in the community. PTO 14:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Switching once again to neutral. I'm not pleased by the links provided, but I don't want my !vote to be the reason why J Di isn't promoted. PTO 22:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)- I've never said they do. J Di 14:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] User:Creol
I'd like to nominate Creol to become an admin, as he/she has done excellent work improving our articles, and could certainly use admin tools to speed up and improve their work. Creol has over 6000 edits (probably more than anyone else in the history of this wiki), but many of these are minor category additions etc. Creol shows good knowledge of policies, and seems to have learned from the very few mistakes he has made. Archer7 - talk 12:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to co-nominate this Rfa. Thanks.-- Tdxiang 05:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Creol, do you accept this nomination?
- Support as nominator. Archer7 - talk 12:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support PullToOpenTalk 16:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support Ksbrown 16:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support - he is probably more familiar than anyone else with the category system, and also is often the only person keeping the night watch, so he should definitely be an admin. Blockinblox - talk 17:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --M7 17:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- support --vector ^_^ (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Elaragirl 18:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong
opposesupport as co-nominator. Remember, Creol, if someone does something whch you do not like, don't create such a fuss about it, okay? You'll do great as an admin, otherwse. Cheers!-- Tdxiang 05:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC) - Support The life of brian 18:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 01:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support looks good to me. Dar-Ape 03:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support He will do great. --Sir James Paul 17:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Can't we just end the Rfa now? There is no way that he will fail and I don't really think that any other people will vote. I really do not think that there is any need to keep the Rfa open. --Sir James Paul 23:11, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is not about Creol's nomination failing. It is about having the possibility to vote. I had a short chrismas break, and only saw this now. Had it been closed, I would not have seen it. -- Eptalon 23:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very diligent editor, though his main hobby seems to be adding/revising categories. Would make a great addition to the admin team. -- Eptalon 23:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Frits 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Cethegus 12:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PullToOpen
I would like to nominate myself to be an administrator because I want to help out with all of the administrative duties. I would help close deletion discussions, keep things like Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Non clear, and take appropriate action against vandals and trolls. I would also assist in deleting the patent nonsense pages, which I see so many of now. I joined Simple in August, and have made over 1000 edits since then. In my four months here, I have learned how Simple works to get stuff done. I would love to help SE Wikipedia in ways that I could not before. Any comments will be greatly appreciated as well. :) PullToOpen Talk 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- strong support --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Archer7 - talk 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support The life of brian 19:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, a really qualified user. --M7 19:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support he has done good for my article, and any who does that to me is great. He would make a great admin.AbbyItalia
22:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Great user, confident that he will excel.-- Tdxiang 06:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Neutral articles were hard to understand for my niece. — This unsigned comment was added by Bobo (talk • contribs) .- Strong support - steady contributor and dedicated vandal fighter! Sometimes he is the only one holding down the fort, could definitely use him as an admin. Blockinblox - talk 03:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support Per Tdxiang. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support User seems to know their way around. Rest can be learned on the job. -- Eptalon 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Creol 04:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Very civil and experienced user.--TBCΦtalk? 08:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] TBC
I'd like to nominate myself for adminship, as sysop tools would make it easier for me to fight against vandalism, close RfD discussions, as well as quickly delete articles that are considered patent nonsense, blatant advertising, or copyright infringement. I've been here since May, 2006 and I've accumulated over 2340 edits, mostly through cleaning up articles and reverting vandalism. I'm also a very active user on the EN wikipedia, which I've contributed to for over a year, amassing around 11,935 edits.--TBCΦtalk? 12:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. You seem to know pretty much everything about this project, and I think you could really help out Simple as an admin. Archer7 - talk 13:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Great job with articles and civility! PullToOpen Talk 15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support --M7 15:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support.-- Tdxiang 04:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support, per all the above comments. Reminder re: RfD discussions, they are usually supposed to last 7 days, unless they are 'speedied'. Also, I just checked to see how long RfA's are supposed to last; the rule on en: is a minimum of 7 days, so I guess we should leave this RfA open until Nov. 30, and then sysop him on that date. Blockinblox 16:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Creol 07:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- strong support --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support The life of brian 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support what a good editor. I don't know you but you are good user. Why not a good amin?--AbbyItalia
22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 19:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very good editor. Deserves to be an admin. -- Eptalon 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Archer7 (for bureaucrat)
As stated at the Meta RfC, I do not have as much time to devote to this project as many others do, so I would prefer to have two other people as bureaucrats rather than me. However, I am willing to act as a bureaucrat for a few months or so, as we're gonna need someone and the choices are rather limited, and I have the time to perform promotions and other technical tasks. Archer7 - talk 20:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, a good and responsible admin, can surely be trusted for this role. --M7 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support --vector ^_^ (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Archer7 is a very responsible admin, and I trust him for this role. However, we should look to getting more premanent solutions. I do not want to do this again, in 6 months time, if possible. -- Eptalon 20:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support, good admin and I trust he will put the new tools to good use. Misza13 20:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Archer7 should do fine as a bureaucrat. Blockinblox 21:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support.-- Tdxiang 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Angela 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - shows the necessary abilities to serve as a good bureaucrat. - Tangotango (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I checked his contributions and I was so disappointed when I couldn't find any dirt on him. zephyr2k 23:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Creol 02:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support I think I can trust Archer7 that he would be a great bureaucrat on simplewiki. He doesn't have any faults and in his actions and is very civil. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 01:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support Very civil and experienced user; has done a lot of great work as an admin.--TBCΦtalk? 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Blockinblox (for bureaucrat)
Zephyr2k suggested on my talk page a few days ago that I run for bureaucrat. I have been an admin since last March 7. While I disdain politics, I have become convinced that we do need a couple more bureaucrats, as well as more admins on the project. I keep my eye on the RC fairly often while I do other computer work, usually anywhere between roughly 7 AM and 10 PM. Note, I have never used my admin power in any content dispute, other than with blatant vandals. I feel that if we can harness the category system usefully, we could have a lot of useful potential toward our goal as a useful "everyman's" encyclopedia. Blockinblox 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - Thank you for your acceptance, M7 21:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support - Definitely should be a bureaucrat. Archer7 - talk 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Simple support Misza13 21:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Can handle the additional power, though same applies as ofr Archer7 (I do not want to do this again in 6 months). -- Eptalon 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Very strong support - GREAT! All of my dealings with Blockinblox have been very good (especially the quick admin vandalism interventions). I am absolutely certain that Blockinblox will use the even bigger set of tools responsibly. PullToOpen Talk 22:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- support --vector ^_^ (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support.-- Tdxiang 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Will be a great bureaucrat. - Tangotango (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Thanks for accepting additional responsibility. zephyr2k 22:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Creol 00:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. ...Aurora... 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I hope he does a good job. But overall, he seems okay to be a bureaucrat. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 01:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support. Very responsible and civil as an admin, will do a great job being a bureaucrat.--TBCΦtalk? 08:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Not promoted
[edit] Anthony cfc (talk ▪ changes)
The simple community has always been a wonderful place to work - much less stressful than English, my main project, and much more inviting. The most appealing characteristic of simple.wikipedia is the fact that it is so much more about writing an encyclopedia than policy debates or Requests for Arbitrations. In all, it's a welcome break from the rather heavy DR work I do there.
However, simple is growing - fast. The volume of vandals commuting between wikipedia.english and here is growing every day, yet the response time of our administrator team hasn't; a possible problem. The solution is - more Wikipedians equipped with the block, protection and deletion buttons.
My opinion is .. yes - I could do that. The community could trust me to promptly attend to Admin Noticeboard requests; to keep an eye on the vandal inputs - and all the while, continue Wikipedian duties: simplify articles, expand and cite others, and collaborate with my fellow editors I've grown to love.
This section is in response to a question below: how would you help out with the extra buttons? My main focus would be prompt deletions on VfDs that the community concensus tells us to get rid of; interpreting concensus has always been one of my strong points. Speedy deletes is yet another focus - chances are, I'll have Category:Quick deletion requests open in another FireFox tab :) if there's any admins watching, Reconstruction has been tagged since 8pm. I also plan to do a medium-to-large-scale overhaul of this page, with some help from my friends on here, including simplifying the voting process, and an automatic form for nominations.
Next up, I'd use the block tool whenever it comes to that sad event we have to lock somebody from editing, for the good of the encyclopedia; I'd use this when necessary, and when the appropiate warning templates have been added. The page protection tool would come in handy during US school hours, when several high-profile pages get replaced by "poop".
I'd also be able to deal with incidents such as this immediately, and without further harm to the encyclopedia.
To summarise, I would use my tools to help this project - to provide a pillar for the newer users; to provide a second opinion to my fellow Wikipedians that have the buttons but faced with a sticky situation. Therefore, I'd like each Wikipedian to first ask themselves...
“ | ..do I trust Anthony cfc to promptly delete articles in line with relevant concensus, to keep the speedy backlog empty, to protect highly vandalised or edit-warred pages until the temperature's back down, and to use the block tool to lock out those that wish to harm the content, and to provide them with a template informing them how to contribute upon their return?.. | ” |
Let the community speak,
Anthonycfc [T • C] 23:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Supporting votes
[edit] Neutral votes
- Neutral - You're doing it very well, but I think you need more experience and more contributions (You have 403 edits, and only 11 deleted edits). FrancoGG ( talk ) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Just a general question, to help me and others vote: what would you do as an admin? FrancoGG ( talk ) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Incorporated into opening statement. Anthonycfc [T • C] 01:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Just a general question, to help me and others vote: what would you do as an admin? FrancoGG ( talk ) 23:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Opposing votes
- Oppose - Only 109 Main space edits, only active 3 days in the last month with only 1 mainspace edit in that time (blanking a page tagged for QD). Of the user's 420 edits, 260 of them are either to User pages or User talk pages. -- Creol(talk) 08:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think in general you are doing good work, but you should do more of it. Wikipedia is not a forum; therefore most edits should be changing articles, or talking about how to change articles. Adminship is about the community trusting you, and relying on you to do good work. To get to there, you first need to be noticed; then you need to work on your image as an editor worthy to merit the trust of the community. It is for this reason, mostly, that there is this guideline of 3 months with the project, or 1.000 edits (presumably in the main article space). So in short: do more of what you are doing at the moment, focus a little more on the main article space, and try again once you have around 1.000 edits there. Please do not see it as a setback; I was also refused on my first appilcation. --Eptalon 11:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - sorry, but we normally ask for a bit more experience over here. Keep up the good work though. Archer7 - talk 18:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose per inexperience. You're making good progress so far here, but I would suggest you try again in a few months after you have many more edits. Nishkid64 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Sadly, I oppose. Work for a little longer. Keep it up!-- Tdxiang 05:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - looking good but not enough main space edits. Ksbrowntalk 13:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] iguana_nirvana14
Although I speak advanced english, I can simplify many articles and correct spelling and grammar mistakes. — This unsigned comment was added by iguana_nirvana14 (talk • contribs) .
Questions from Creol (talk ▪ changes) (10:19, 28 January 2007)
-
- In what way do you believe the ability to correct spelling qualifies you for the position of administrator?
- A:
- What exactly is required of the position of administrator?
- A:
- As many of your main space edits have been reverted for one reason or another, do you feel this is an indication on your ability to help the project at this time in the capabilities of Administrator? If so, in what ways?
- A:
- Can you list the differences in the use of G1, G3, A1 and A4?
- A:
- How would you handle the usage of dictionary definitions to define BE 850 terms?
- A:
- In what way do you believe the ability to correct spelling qualifies you for the position of administrator?
- Strongest Possible Oppose and Close per WP:SNOW - You have 13 edits and have been here for about half an hour. PullToOpenTalk 04:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose, administrator tools are not needed to correct spelling and grammar or simplify articles and the candidate has not made many edits; it is near impossible to see how they would react in certain situations and if they would be able to use the administrator tools in ways beneficial to the project. J Di 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Currently, there is an (informal) requirement to be with this project for 3 months, or to have 1.000 edits. Neither of which is met. The fact that this application was not even signed also suggests that the user is not familiar with the way, things work around here. As such, I do not think this user would make a good administrator at this point in time. --Eptalon 11:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] J Di
I know I've only been contributing heavily for the last nineteen days, and I saw people on WP:ST saying their minimums are three months and 1000 edits so I know my chances of this succeeding are pretty slim at this point, but this wiki doesn't have many active administrators and I'm active a lot so I'd be able to help out quite a bit. I'm an administrator on English Wikipedia, so I know about how everything works. I'm pretty good with English Wikipedia's policies, and I've read a bit of the stuff here too. Because of how active I am, I'd be able to deal with quick deletions and vandals quickly.
I'm not actually expecting this to pass, and if it doesn't, I'll understand; it seems unlikely that the community would be able to trust a user enough in less than a month to give them the administrator tools. But I'm giving it a shot, so here goes. J Di 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Notes:
- Support He is active unlike most sysop's. --Sir James Paul 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, but only because you haven't been here long enough, in my opinion. Three months, and I'll gladly vote support for you. PullToOpen Talk 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, I'm slightly concerned about perseverance and quality standards, but I will certainly support next time.
I also recommend putting up a user page, people tend to prefer to see no red link in sysop log actions...This user's email is already enabled and he is prompt and collaborative. --M7 23:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC) - support --vector ^_^ (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per PullToOpen.The life of brian 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not about the quality of your edits alone. Stay a litlte longer, do a few more edits, and succeed. The community needs to know people to be able to trust them. -- Eptalon 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose You haven't been in simplewiki long enough to be an admin as PullToOpen says. I'd also recommend for you to stay here a few months more, get more edits, and be trustworthy for other users to make you a sysop. And also recent aciviy has only beagn during early December. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose, still needs one or two more months of experience.--TBCΦtalk? 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Just because your an admin on the en doesn't mean you necessarily pass as an admin here. You need to be here longer. --AbbyItalia 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Same issues with other editors. zephyr2k 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, sadly. J Di is good, but not now. Perhaps next time.-- Tdxiang 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: Not particularly pleased with a few edits he has made. He probably intentionally uses the admin tools for fun and not for good purposes, like in this instance on English wiki - the merge discussion was already closed at the time, so just deliberately reverting edits using the admin tools isn't good, I think. Also in Simple wiki, I don't know what he was trying to do with this revert here. I don't think it's right to just use the popup tools for fun. I do not trust him, as I doubt a few edits have not been in good faith, and it doesn't matter if he has been in Simple wiki long enough or not. RaNdOm26 07:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate being told that my edits were probably made in bad faith. If anybody has a problem with an edit I make or something I do, I'd rather they ask me about it as soon as they notice it rather than wait for a forum where they can accuse me of bad faith actions, some of which I don't even remember doing. Administrator rollback isn't easy to stop once the button is clicked, and I have clicked it by accident a few times; it's an easy thing to do. I've even reverted a few anti-vandalism bots by accident and been warned by them. I remember the revert on en:Damien Leith, and I reverted it as quickly as I could. It was an accident, and for what it's worth, I was a bit panicky after I realised I had clicked it. As for the edit to cell wall, I don't remember making it, but it was most likely a mistake; why would I revert your edit to the next last good revision when your edit had already removed the vandalism? I'm pretty sure I was acting in good faith anyway, as I apparently warned the vandal after I made that edit. That you don't trust me is fine; I wasn't expecting many people to after nineteen days, but I wasn't expecting this at all and I'm saddened by the fact that you think I don't take my responsibilities on English Wikipedia seriously. J Di 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- If you reverted by accident, you could have said sorry when you reverted it back. That is why I do not think you use your tools well. It looked like you were just using the tools for your own pleasure. Why not next time you could use a bit of politeness, because I wasn't very happy after you used the admin tools like that. (Oh, by the way, an RfA is NOT a forum. Not sure why you said it was a forum) RaNdOm26 07:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't appreciate being told that my edits were probably made in bad faith. If anybody has a problem with an edit I make or something I do, I'd rather they ask me about it as soon as they notice it rather than wait for a forum where they can accuse me of bad faith actions, some of which I don't even remember doing. Administrator rollback isn't easy to stop once the button is clicked, and I have clicked it by accident a few times; it's an easy thing to do. I've even reverted a few anti-vandalism bots by accident and been warned by them. I remember the revert on en:Damien Leith, and I reverted it as quickly as I could. It was an accident, and for what it's worth, I was a bit panicky after I realised I had clicked it. As for the edit to cell wall, I don't remember making it, but it was most likely a mistake; why would I revert your edit to the next last good revision when your edit had already removed the vandalism? I'm pretty sure I was acting in good faith anyway, as I apparently warned the vandal after I made that edit. That you don't trust me is fine; I wasn't expecting many people to after nineteen days, but I wasn't expecting this at all and I'm saddened by the fact that you think I don't take my responsibilities on English Wikipedia seriously. J Di 09:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think the user needs more time so that their editing can be analysed more accurately. I am not currently happy with some edits made on this wikipedia. My view could change if I had more edits and time to consider.Ksbrown 17:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- Make more edits and try again in a month or 2. --Sir James Paul 03:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- So, Sir Paul, are you retracting your vote for support above? ZimZalaBim 00:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I still support him. I meant he should wait so he could get support from others. I still support him. I think that he will do a good job as a sysop.--Sir James Paul 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sir James Paul (2)
If elected as sysop the thing I will focus reverting vandalism. The last time I ran to be a sysop I learned a lot about policies and guidlines and since then I have spent a lot of time trying to learn them. The reason why I want to become a sysop so bad is because I think it is the best way to help wikipedia simple english because right now I have run out of ideas for articles so I will not be editing as much, I still want to help out around here so I decided to run to be a sysop. Another reason why you should vote for me is because I am friendly most of the time. Thanks.--Sir James Paul 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- ""Support""--Sir James Paul 22:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, for the same reasons as yesterday. PullToOpen Talk 22:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Before voting please ask me some questions. To prove that I am a hard worker and will be very active here is my user page on wikiquote siple english, I made my account late last night. http://simple.wikiquote.org/wiki/User:Sir_James_Paul .--Sir James Paul 22:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's been a day since your last nomination; that should be reason enough to oppose. J Di 22:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Question. What makes this different to yesterday's RfA? You asked me to close it early, I did, and now it's back. Yesterday you managed 5 oppose votes in about two hours, it's not going to change today. Tdxiang's suggestion of 3 months is a very good one: you will most likely not get supports with much less than that. Archer7 - talk 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- AnswerIt is because I hade time to study, and get to know guidlines and policies. When i started yesterday I said things that were against wikipedia policies, and spammed peoples talk pages and that is some reasons why people opposed me. I had you close it because I wanted time to learn policies and I did so I am trying to become a sysop again. The reason why I want to be a sysop is because I am running out of ideas for articles but I still want to help. Thanks for the question sir.--Sir James Paul 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just give me a chance and I will make you proud.--Sir James Paul 22:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The reason why I want to become a sysop is so I can help wikipedia, it is not for personal gain or to help me life on wikipedia. It is the best way I can help right now. --Sir James Paul 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT Wikipedia needs more active sysop's and I promise to be a active one. --Sir James Paul 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Can't we apply WP:SNOW to this? PullToOpen Talk
- COMMENT There is a small chance I could win, very, very, small.--Sir James Paul 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sir James Paul
- Even though I do not have an incredible amount of edits I think I will do a great job as a sysop. The only thing I promise is to work hard. I am a quick learner so if I make a mistake I will not make it again. I have already learned a lot from this election about policies and I will learn more about them--Sir James Paul 20:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. As I said before, you're just not ready to be a sysop yet. A few more months contributing and maybe. Archer7 - talk 20:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, and second everything Archer7 said above. Blockinblox - talk 21:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Oppose because the user has spammed heaps of user talk pages about this nomination. He has even spammed a template (diff). I don't know if that was a mistake or an attempt to get more support from people. Either way, it hasn't worked on me, sorry mate. Also, bans and blocks are both different things, and the fact that they are both used interchangeably by the candidate makes me think that he does not know enough of the policies to be an administrator. J Di 21:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, per everybody else's comments. Especially the spamming of talk pages. PullToOpen Talk 21:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I am a very quick learner. I did not know I was spamming talk pages and will not make that mistake again. I have already become familar with the blocking policies. Even though I will probably lose this will help me in the future, I have already learned a lot. As a sysop if I need help I will ask another sysop.--Sir James Paul 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Enthusiastic, but much to learn. History at other wiki projects shows the same (en:Wikipedia and en:Wikiquote) ZimZalaBim 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Netoholic (current bureaucrat, vote to reinstate privileges)
This vote is necessary to find out if the only active bureaucrat on simple.wikipedia has the necessary consensus to keep his status or should be removed. Prior to this vote, Netoholic has been put on request for comments on meta and then the Stewards have been reported about the current situation. Other active administrators have also been asked to candidate themselves for bureaucrat position. --M7 18:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Except some brief delays in promotion, I have performed as a bureaucrat with no complaints until M7 has decided to persue this campaign against me after I made a judgement call and chose not to promote User:Tdxiang. These sorts of judgement calls happen occassionally, and should not be used to attack the person put in the position of making that call. It is equally likely that I might have promoted, but had people complain about that or that decision be regretted. -- Netoholic @ 18:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Netoholic has now been desysopped by a steward (see Wikipedia talk:Administrators. This vote will now determine whether these are to be reinstated. Archer7 - talk 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- There is little chance of people reconfirming me since this trouble is all so recent. Reconfirmation of sysops is a bad idea because that job attract criticism over time. Apparently, my removal is the reward for putting over two years of hard admin and bureacrat work into this wiki - that it all can be shattered in the matter of one week. So, to all you ambitious ones, enjoy it while it lasts. I would suggest staying away from making bold, hard decisions, as you will end up being punished for them. -- Netoholic @ 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Update: Netoholic has now been desysopped by a steward (see Wikipedia talk:Administrators. This vote will now determine whether these are to be reinstated. Archer7 - talk 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- OK, tomorrow will make it a week since this vote has been opened. Does anyone think this vote should carry on, get some more opinions, or just close it? Archer7 - talk 15:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Vote Log
(support removal/oppose removal/remove bureaucrat status/neutral)
(5/1/3/2)
- Support - I see no reason why Netoholic should lose their status. -- Eptalon 18:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - Those still having doubts can see this --M7 18:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove from bureaucrat only this page: request for comments and this: reported is the reason --vector ^_^ (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- M7 isn't a Troll, and THIS?? --vector ^_^ (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - lol, such a tiny wiki and already has a wheel war. :) Misza13 18:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - my reasons stated on the Meta RfC. Archer7 - talk 19:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Remove - Alright, Neto, this has gone too far. M7 is NOT a troll. I request for him to be unblocked immediately, because that was completely unacceptable. I am sad that it has come to this... PullToOpen Talk 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Change vote to Neutral. I have decided that I want to stay out of this vote. I don't want any blood on my hands. PullToOpen Talk 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support removal after reading said meta RfC. Misza13 20:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I remain neutral. On this issue about the veto placed on me. It is therefore up to the new bureaucrats' decision to op me.-- Tdxiang 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove, per my comments on the RFC and the recent developments. - Tangotango (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Neutral. Simple WP wouldn't have been better off if Netoholic had taken a wikibreak at the peak of the conflict until the issues die out. But he stayed on with the project and continued with his responsibilities to clean up the site despite this. However, the block on M7 is unjustified and constitutes an abuse of power whichever way you look at it. Thus, I cannot give him a 'keep', but at the same time, cannot give a 'remove'. zephyr2k 23:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sysop only. ...Aurora... 13:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove bureaucrat and adminstrator access. --§ Alastor Moody (T + C) 01:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Remove from being a bureaucrat, but not as an admin --TBCΦtalk? 20:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)