Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alkivar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Alkivar

final (28/21/3) ending 01:00 30 March 2005 (UTC)

Alkivar is one cool lad. Done a lot of good work here. In excess of 4000 edits since June 2004. Quite a qualified candidate, in my humble opinion. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll gladly accept the nomination. I can't guarantee I’ll be the best admin, but I’ll sure try.

Support

  1. Strong support, obviously. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. YES! Grutness|hello? 01:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support-- Duk 01:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Yes, Mr. Raver. Nadavspi | talk 01:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. As promised. —Korath (Talk) 02:12, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  6. He's extremely raveriffic. —RaD Man (talk) 02:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. I very rarely agree with his opinions (especially on VfD), but after reviewing his contributions, I don't see any reason not to support. Since he's aware that he can run a bit hot at times, that doesn't really concern me. Carbonite | Talk 02:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Quite. — Dan | Talk 02:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Other than trying to have me arbitrated for a ridiculous reason and going a bit over the top at times you are a definite wiki enthusiast, and there is plenty of work to go around --Alterego 06:13, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 06:33, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Fair and involved. JFW | T@lk 09:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support. JuntungWu 12:07, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support. If RickK can be an admin then Alkivar obviously can. AngryParsley 21:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  14. Concur with AngryParsley and others. ugen64 04:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Support An impressive editor. Squash 05:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support. Worth adminship. - Vague | Rant 12:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, good user.--Bishonen | Talk 12:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support, Alkivar is a good user. Inter\Echo 12:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. Rad Racer 13:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Jayjg (talk) 14:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. All round good guy and an asset to Wikipedia. Zerbey 18:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. Meets my admin criterion (though unfortunately it seems doing lots of minor edits is more important if you want to become an admin rather than writing good quality articles), jguk 08:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. Grue 13:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support --GRider\talk 16:45, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support --Neigel von Teighen 18:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support -- Pedant 03:58, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  27. Mike H 23:09, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  28. Strong Support. Alkivar is one great guy. →mathx314(talk)(email) 23:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Sorry, but I don't think someone who calls people who disagree with him "morons" in an edit summary [1] will make a good administrator. Perhaps in time (that edit is only three days old), but I can't support currently. Gamaliel 03:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, user has in past added falsified data [2], backed up with unprovable statements, has removed discussions (although this got a bit heated, as you'll see from this edit) from his talk page about this information [3], and has at other times messed with other users user pages [4]. Doesn't seem suitable for an admin for much the same reasons I'll never be suitable. Kiand 05:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I stand by my edits, I chose to not continue the argument as it was unproductive. We both chose to stick to our side of the issue so it might as well drop. As for the Userpage vandalism, that was done WHILE TALKING TO SPUI on irc, he knew it was coming and joked about it with me. That was just a simple case of RickK not understanding what was going on.  ALKIVAR™ 05:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    While I welcomed the warning by RickK as a response to our fun, the vandalism was all in good fun, and I doubt he would do it to someone who would mind. --SPUI (talk) 04:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose. Does not believe in Wikiquette. RickK 05:48, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Fair enough Rick... its obvious we dont agree on issues and dont like each other. I'm not going to please everyone.  ALKIVAR™ 05:53, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. Strong oppose, mainly based on repeated run-ins on VfD that did not display the maturity I expect out of an admin, although there are other reasons as well (obviously). Kelly Martin 06:00, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Pardon the seemingly rude question, but, who are you exactly? I have NEVER seen your sig before today.  ALKIVAR™ 06:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I have changed my opinion to strong oppose, on the basis of the above. Kelly Martin 06:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    Excuse me? all i did was ask who you were. I literally have NEVER seen your sig before.  ALKIVAR™ 06:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I've always thought that a good way to find out who someone is is to look at her User and Talk pages, and maybe peek at her contributions (about 800 since December 2004, no apparent vandalism or bad faith edits)—rather than confronting her abruptly on RfA. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 01:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    If you call that "abrupt confrontation", I should be hard-banned by now. ugen64 04:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I agree that it was a fair question. But then again, I should have been hard-banned moons ago.  :D —RaD Man (talk) 05:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I just thought it was phrased...inelegantly. Particularly in this context, asking a question that includes the statement "...NEVER seen your sig before" seems brusque, and might be misinterpreted as an accusation of sockpuppetry or the like. If Alkivar can't remember any specific dispute with that editor, he could always ask her on her talk page, rather than right here in the list of votes. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. I think Alkivar is a very good editor but unfortunately has a tendency to make personal attacks. Sorry. Rhobite 06:02, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    It's ok Rho, I still like you :P  ALKIVAR™ 06:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Reluctantly oppose. Good editor, but bad "people skills". Jordi·✆ 09:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. On the basis of above comments, and the grammar and spelling of the acceptance, Oppose. Dmn / Դմն 14:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Lord... people make typos, for Christ's sake! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 17:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Spelling mistake still not corrected. Dmn / Դմն 01:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Now it is. Anything you'd like to say now? Mike H 23:05, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  8. For the most part Alkivar is a great editor, unfortunatly he has displayed poor people skills. I will support in the future if he shows more civility in conflict. Rje 15:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Seems to get hot under the collar rather too easily. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 18:40, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Hesitant oppose. Excellent editor, and very active in community stuff (such as VfD), but he does tend to have a somewhat short fuse. Will support in the future, if this problem is dealt with. →Iñgōlemo← talk 23:54, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  12. I've seen him get pretty worked up on VfDs that he disagreed with and insult the nominators. Seems like a good guy otherwise, if he calms down a bit maybe I'll support. Andre (talk) 02:09, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose user can get pretty rude to those he disagrees with. That's not exactly an endearing trait for an editor, and a nightmare as an admin. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:30, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. I don't know Alkivar, but judging by his interrogation of the people opposing him here, I am not entirely confident that he would be a level-headed admin. If you want to prove me wrong, Alkivar, I'm happy to be disproven. - Mark 05:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. I'm voting against because of Alkivar's response to User:Kelly Martin's oppose vote (Pardon the seemingly rude question, but, who are you exactly? I have NEVER seen your sig before today) and his response when I queried it (I even asked in the nicest way possible ... If this is to be construed as rude and abrupt well then I guess I just dont [sic] know what a civilized conversation is), when even a glance at Kelly's contributions show she's a legitimate editor. This is exactly the kind of aggression an admin should not display. I'll vote for Alkivar in a couple of months or so if he can show he's taken steps to go a little easier on people. SlimVirgin 19:41, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
    when someone says they've had repeated runins with me and I've never seen their sig that says something is fishy. After doing a check it turns out this is Karynn on #wikipedia the user I had an argument over politics and abortion with. Most likely her opposition is because of my political beliefs not my editing.  ALKIVAR™ 21:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    For the record I went through every single VfD back to Kelly Martin's signup and I could not find a single VfD we both posted on. In fact i'd love for you to show me one, cause obviously I cant find it.  ALKIVAR™ 21:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Is it possible that she was concerned about run-ins you may have had with other editors? Her remark was ambiguous that way, and I gather you have had some somewhat heated exchanges on VfD. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 22:51, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I don't necessary vote in every VfD I read. I never said the run-ins in question were with me; merely that I recall having observed run-ins of yours with other editors on VfD that lead me to believe that you lack the maturity required of an admin. Your penchant for bullying those who vote opposed you (both on VfD and in this instant matter) is hard to miss. In any case, my opinions of your politics and/or other philosophies, based on your comments in the IRC channel, have nothing to do with my opposition to your candidacy; I am offended that you suggest otherwise. Kelly Martin 05:31, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Reluctantly Oppose. I've had brief but positive experiences in the past with Alkivar. However, he's demonstrably too hotheaded to be an admin. That said, not everyone needs to be an admin to be a valuable contributor to Wikipedia and Alkivar is an excellent editor. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 22:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose based on a review of many exchanges with other editors. I endorse what the voter directly above said. Jonathunder 04:59, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per recent personal attack on VfD page, in spite of his promises below. Radiant_* 21:50, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps had you not been making your own personal attacks by VfD'ing GRiders personal userspace I might care more. pot, meet kettle.  ALKIVAR™ 12:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • So, basically, you're saying that you consider it ok to attack someone if you believe that person is attacking a third party? How about Civility instead? You should be aware that "Inappropriate user space" is a legitimate VfD criterion. That the consensus disagrees with me on this point doesn't make it a bad faith nomination. Radiant_* 15:29, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Definitely he's done some good work, but I've had enough poor experience in dealing with him that I have to oppose for now. Everyking 01:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Alkivar's done some great work for Wikipedia, but administrators should deal with others with more civility. His comments on this page alone, especially with respect to Kelly Martin (and also to Radiant) are enough to push me to oppose. I'd definitely support in the future if he can slightly modify the way he interacts with users he disagrees with. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Switching my vote to Oppose on the following grounds:
    1. He's not a full-blooded American citizen, thus he lacks certain qualities (such as pride, honor, and trustworthiness) that are necessary for an admin. I've checked his records; he in fact does NOT have any Shawnee, Chippewa, or Sioux, no Blackfoot, no Navajo, no Hopi, not even Apache, or Zuni, no Crow, no Iroquois, no Cherokee, or Algonquin, no Seminole, no Nez-Perce, NOT EVEN any Inuit blood in him.
    2. He recently made certain comments on IRC which lead to my decision to switch to oppose. Specifically, he said "i think i should have everyone who supported me switch to oppose now". Since he said it on IRC, it applies on Wikipedia.
    3. My vote at this point doesn't matter. -- BRIAN0918  17:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • This is gratuitous racism that has no place in Wikipedia. It is an international encyclopaedia - we cannot and must not have people opposing others' adminship (or indeed anything else) on the grounds that they are not American. The belief you espouse that only Americans have honour, trustworthiness and pride is an abomination. If this is the sort of nonsense you wish to come out with, please go elsewhere, jguk 18:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  • I've disagreed with Alkivar almost every time I've interacted with him. Nevertheless, I cannot recall seeing a comment from him that was anything but rational and well thought-out. I will change to support if he removes the image from his signature, given the recent problems with the image servers. —Korath (Talk) 01:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • You know it completely slipped my mind that it would be hurting the image server at the moment, since the image is from commons. I have commented it out for the moment.  ALKIVAR™ 02:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. I like that he supports an appropriate procedure for de-adminship. I'll move to support if he stops transcluding his signature with a /sig (which is worse than an image in some respects). -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
    • I have now changed it, although that wont remove the old sigs.  ALKIVAR™ 05:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Shame, I rather liked it :-) JFW | T@lk 09:51, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. I haven't editing the Wiki very much, due to poor internet connectivity and general attention leakage, so I don't consider myself qualified to judge Alkivar's contributions, or vote had I the time to analyse them. However, I do consider myself a very good judge of character, and have spoken many times with Alkivar on IRC. In my experience, he is intelligent, articulate and passionate. Intelligence and articulation are relatively neutral descriptors, they rarely detract from a person's suitability for Adminship. Passion, however, can have both positive and negative effects, as has been recognised in some of the reactions herein. Sometimes our passion makes is uncautious, saying things we perhaps wouldn't say in another situation, or react to people in a way we'd normally know isn't conducive to co-operation. However, these are - in my opinion, at least - the exceptions: the norm of Alkivar's passion is in his dedication to the Wikipedia and the article he believes he can best contribute to. So, I guess what I'm saying is don't be afraid of passion, without it none of us would be here. nsh 06:10, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I agree with both the support and oppose votes, so I vote neutral. --Lst27 (talk) 01:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    I'm presently in doubt on this. On the one hand Alkivar is an enthousiastic and established editor, and I'm sure the admins would appreciate his help for that. On the other hand, on several occasions I've seen him being downright rude to people who didn't share his opinion, and that seems hardly appropriate for an admin. Radiant_* 09:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    I readily admit i'm quick tempered, its been a problem of mine for years. I do tend to blow up angrily on VfD when I see stuff listed as "not notable" where the person actually means "i've never heard of it." I think if people followed official VFD guidelines i'd be less inclined to get angry since "not notable" is not a valid guideline for deletion. I do promise to work on my temper, and think before speaking if that makes any difference to you.  ALKIVAR™ 11:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I assume you are aware of this proposal about strictly following official VfD, that was met with heavy opposition? Radiant_* 09:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't, but I am now.  ALKIVAR™ 13:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • (changed to oppose vote explained above)

Comments

  • 4147 edits; 2647 to the main namespace. —Korath (Talk) 01:36, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • SPUI, AngryParsley, and Alkivar were indeed in discussion over SPUI's user page at the time of the so-called "vandalism". I have the IRC log if anybody needs it. silsor 06:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
He's done this with more than 1 user, and it's all in good fun while talking to the "victim" on IRC. Inter\Echo 19:09, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned about Alkivar's responses to Kelly Martin's oppose vote. People should be allowed to vote against without negative comment; Kelly's an editor in good standing and whether Alkivar has seen that signature before is neither here nor there (I hadn't noticed Alkivar's signature before this). I wonder if Alkivar could say a bit more about this kind of response. SlimVirgin 18:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    The biggest problem with conversations over the internet is lack of tone. I merely asked who she was, thats it! I even asked in the nicest way possible "pardon the seemingly rude question but, who exactly are you?" If this is to be construed as rude and abrupt well then I guess I just dont know what a civilized conversation is.  ALKIVAR™ 22:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • But you knew it was rude. You said yourself: "Pardon the seemingly rude question." All you had to do was check Kelly's contributions to see that she is an editor in good standing. My point is that this page presumably sees you on your best behavior, as you're trying to persuade people to vote for you; yet still there is a very in-your-face attitude to opposition, which I would find worrying in an admin. Rather than just voting oppose, I thought it would be fairer to offer you the opportunity to explain. SlimVirgin 22:34, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • In reference to the RickK/Alkivar comparison, suffice to say that judging by the history, RFA was a lot more of a laid-back process in 2003 than it is now. Rejecting a qualified admin candidate for "grammar and spelling of the acceptance" is a far cry from the original concept of "this should be no big deal". Rad Racer 16:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Alkivar is a good editor, who has made many worthy contributions to articles, and who clearly cares about increasing Wikipedia as a good source of information. It saddens me that some prefer those who just tweak pages and make edits to Wikipedia space pages over those who are making a worthwhile longstanding contribution to the project, jguk 15:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Prefer in what way? Making major contributions to articles is very important, the most important activity here. But there is no need to have access to administrator tools to do that. Adminship is not a reward for good editing. So yes, I would prefer to make an administrator one who helped catch vandalism and copyvios and such over one who wrote featured articles, but I would prefer overall the excellent writer. Traits such as being quick tempered and blowing up are really not appropriate for an administrator, in my opinion. Alkivar recognizes these qualities and once he is able to control them a bit more, he would make an excellent administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:03, 27 Mar 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. probably vandalism patrol, I tend to see a lot of linkspam on articles.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Graffiti (FA) and Colditz Castle (on FAC), I try to put as much depth into something as I possibly can generally I like to illustrate my articles with images, Graffiti and Colditz Castle have a very nice variety of related images.
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. Edit conflicts not really, I have however pulled an attitude on VfD before. I do tend to be a bit hotheaded at times. After i've sat and thought about things for a minute I realize i've overstepped and will usually appologize. I promise to think before acting more often if approved.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Alkivar_0c02.html"