Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Juro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

[edit] Juro

Withdrawn (7/21/1), ending 20:51 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Juro (talk • contribs) – I trust Juro as a very good Admin. He is a very friendly, calm editor. He also does excellent work with history articles. He's shown a strong interest in using discussion pages to work out issues and strive for neutral, accurate articles, as well as in identifying and mediating conflict. He made almost 6000 edits. He is kind and civil and I think Juro would make a good admin. Let's vote for him! Bonaparte talk 12:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:I accept the nomination. Juro 20:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I am withdrawing my nomination. I think I have seen enough. Generally, it is higly interesting that people are voting here that absolutely do not know me, my edits or the pre-history and reasons of my comments, nevertheless they feel "authorized" enough to decide whether I should be an admin. Such a system is definitely not OK. ... Is this the right place for the withdrawal? Juro 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Very strong support - Juro is one of the users that I trust. He is a very friendly, excellent contributor. We need such Admins like him. Bonaparte talk 12:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support - Civilized attitude in "heated" subjects. Highly predictable. --Vasile 14:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support, but only on the condition that you use edit summaries much more consistently. —Nightstallion (?) 15:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC) changed to oppose per 19:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support, very knowlegeable and dedicated editor. Jbetak 18:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, a very enthusiastic and knowledgeable contributor, with an excellent temperament. Iinag 19:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support - I've come across him once and he is calm and works well with other users. Not to mention his good contributions on Slovak topics. He has been accused of being a Slovak POV-pusher, but I don't think that's an accurate description at all. Ronline ✉ 09:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Juro is a very knowlegeable and dedicated editor. Yodo 13:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    removed for Wikipedia:sock puppet Sciurinæ 14:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
    Unless evidence is provided, please leave this decision to the closing bureaucrat. Guettarda 15:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Monor 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose Too few edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Also, please answer the questions below and post the nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strongly Oppose However I think Juro a valuable contributor, he is well known as a strong Slovak POV-pusher. I had heated edit wars with him and he made personal attacks against me (see Dunajská Streda) calling me fascist and chauvinist and making hostile remarks about my profession. I'm not over-sensitive so I not take this too seriously from a fellow-contributor but I think it unacceptable from an admin. Zello 20:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    We have all seen your edits Zello so don't push it. Bonaparte talk 20:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    I just remark that I have been also accused by Slovak editors of making anti-Slovak edits. So much for "Slovak-POV" pusher. In fact, I can be considered anything except that. Juro 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    "In this wikipedia, I only deal with articles that have something to do with Slovakia or its surroundings, so that nobody will know me here, except persons I was involved in disputes with. That is not a good basis for an admin candidature. Also, I tend to lose my self-control when someone repeatedly says something I consider complete nonsense. That would be another problem. Juro 22:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)" This was your first reaction for nomination. Bonaparte deleted it from your talk page 1 day later but you were right then. Zello 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    Here is the link to the edit Zello is referring to. — TheKMantalk 22:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Ignores edit summaries, ignores standard questions—not a good sign. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose, not enough project space edits, was fairly uncivil when requesting a user be blocked. [1] --Interiot 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose until email set and questions answered. It would be helpful to hear something from the candidate other than "I accept the nomination." --TheParanoidOne 22:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strongly Oppose Well-known Slovak POV-pusher, uses the word 'fascist' to discredit other contributors, qualifies content disputes as vandalism (see eg. Treaty of Trianon). Vay 22:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    You and your "collegues", who should certainly do anything else then doing edits in this wikipedia, know very well why I called you fascist, and I STICK TO IT. I only call people "fascists" when I have good reasons to do so and I recognize fascists after two sentences. That is not an insult that is a statement of what you are. Juro 23:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. No matter how right or wrong you may be, you shouldn't be calling other users ignorant or fascist [2]. A few other things: Edit summary usage is low, and when it was used, it was to try to communicate. Edit summaries are there to help other editors figure out what your edits were about, and if you have to communicate, do it on a talk page. Also, I would also like some answers to the generic questions. — TheKMantalk 22:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Being uncivil is a major problem in my opinion. Also, the lack of edit summaries doesn't help. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Didn't even bother to answer the questions. Jkelly 22:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Nice answers to the questions... and lack of edits summaries, coupled with the above users' complains about civility. Olorin28 23:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, inability to refrain from harsh personal attacks on users his is in conflict with suggests he is likely to use admin powers abusively. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. User is too controversial at this time. --King of All the Franks 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, per all the comments above in this section, this editor clearly needs his sharper corners thoroughly rounding off for several months yet. -Splashtalk 01:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Weak oppose, too few edit summeries and controversial edits. But seems to be improving so keep it up. Also, he hasn't answered the questions at the bottom of the nomination page. That should be done first thing. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 01:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Too little project namespace participation. Why does he need to be an admin if all he is going to do is to discuss things on talk pages? I know nothing about this user, but if he would be so kind as to explain himself a bit in the questions, I might change my mind. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. POV pusher who I simply wouldn't trust to misuse powers. Grace Note 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose for now. User hasn't answered the candidate questions. — JIP | Talk 05:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose POV-pusher. --Khoikhoi 08:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Strongly oppose. Not clear why he wants to be an admin, what special tasks he would serve; too much POV-pushing-like discussions, revertions with personal or racist (anti-Hnugarian fanatic) attacks ([3]), in edit sumaries ("this an English encyclopedia and not a Hungarian dictionary, nevertheless the Hungarian name is mentioned above, if you want to use Hung. names, you have the Hu wikipedia, even KissL had to correct yo"). Too much problems with him to hold into highly responsible position. Gubbubu 12:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. We don't need admins that participate in namecalling. Also, questions have still not been answered and Juro's low use of edit summaries are disappointing.Image:Weather rain.pngSoothingR 14:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Would like to support, but not even having answerred the questions... ah, well. —Nightstallion (?) 19:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. The ingredients for an admin are there, however, there are too many lose ends that need to be addressed. For starters, the interest in this RfA is clearly shown by the depth of the answers to the questions below. --Jay (Reply) 05:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments


Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia even more. Please take the time to answer 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.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A.
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.
4. What do you think of these questions?
A.


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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Juro_1b14.html"