Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] AfC

Vote here (0/12/0) ending 07:06 13 June 2005 (UTC) Closed early as rejected or non-serious nomination

AfC is an outstanding, upright citizen who deserves to be an admin and would make good out of the post. He has a good reputation on VfD votes and has made some good edits in the past. CunningLinguist 07:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I thank mighty Allah that I have been nominated by my peer, and accept this nomination. -Da 'Sco Mon 07:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. I have to be honest, I had had no real dealings with the User, but when I went to his User page, the cartoon there offends me. RickK 07:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Please note that Afc has changed the image on his User page since my comment above. My objections were to Image:Al-Farida, Lebanon pre-1967 war.jpg. RickK 08:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    Wait just a minute, you stated that you were offended by it. The reason for my removing it was that someone specifically mentioned that said image offended them, and beleive as I do that all men have the right to avoid offense I removed it in the even that others would visit my page and likewise be offended. My intent was to mock the hatred in the particular region in question by using the image as a means to demonstrate that despite all of that hate and anger things have remained the same up to and including this day, and that the people of Israel have in fact not given in to the face of destruction as was hoped. I see this as a metaphor for Wikipedia and its presidance despite the attacks on it by those who would enjoy seeing its destruction for no logical or sound reasons. However, I also beleive in free speech, and objections in my book are different from offenses, and the right of people to express themselves despite opposition and would have possibly not removed the old image from my page had you merely expressed object previously. I would ask that you clarify which category you are in. -Da 'Sco Mon 09:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    Proves my point. This is all just a joke. RickK 09:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Recent vandalism, and 159 edits. I've asked the user to withdraw the nomination for now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    User declined my offer to remove the nomination. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Image vandal; not anything like enough edits to have become familiar with WP policies; and does not answer the questions to admin candidates properly. I have to say I think it may be a bad faith nomination. David | Talk 08:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    I was under the impression that I had to answer the questions, of which I had so far answered two, and not that I had to follow a certain guide or instructional with specifications on answering the questions properly. Perhaps I have missed that somewhere. Please help me by linking me to it. -Da 'Sco Mon 08:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Far too early! See my comment below, but AfC doesn't have enough experience, and this likely a joke nomination - look at his answer to the questions below. Harro5 08:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    I suppose that people that enjoy being expressive with their words are all likely jokes.-Da 'Sco Mon 08:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    If you're going to be "expressive", fine, but don't rip off Eisenhower's farewall address.
  5. Oppose: not enough experience, no serious answers to questions for candidate, vandalism, possibly sock puppet. Sietse 09:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Way too early, and the other comments are worrying me. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:45, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Why waste more words? -- Hoary 11:19, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose Joke or not, user ripped off an Eisenhower speech when answering below, and that alone is behaviour unbefitting an admin. The image vandalism and very low edit count provide even more reason. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  9. No. Mike H 13:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Absolutely Not Words and actions on this RfA alone show that the candidate is not nearly ready for the position and responsiblities that go with it. Bratschetalk random 13:44, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Not only is the edit count low (and always forgetting to sign in is not a good mark of an admin either), but the various responses and contributions of this user lead me to believe that this user would not make a good admin, and I wonder if this is a joke nomination as well. --Deathphoenix 15:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  12. Hurrr. I'm disappointed in those of you saying you WONDER if it's a joke nom. Assume bad faith sometimes, sheesh. --Golbez 15:59, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

Comments

  • kate's edit count has AfC with a total of 159 edits despite first editing last November, and many of those were made to user pages (often not his own) and to VfDs. Harro5 08:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • While editing is one thing, review of articles is another. I have viewed countless pages on Wikipedia and left them as is after revieweing them. Why should I make pointless edits that add nothing to pages that I find, in good reason, to be prefectly well as they are when I read them. I also, often make edits while changing a number of items within an edit at once, and have noticed that on the other hand, users will make their edits to a certain page bit by bit word by word. I now suspect I know why such annoying efforts are made. In addition to all this, I often use public computers during the day and due to my forgetful nature find it best not to sign in, in fear of forgetting to sign out amongst a population of wikipedia saavy persons, while I make edits.
  • Consideirng the number of edits that Afc has made to the User:CunningLinguist page, and the uploading of an image purported to be that of CunningLinguist and its insertion not only into CunningLinguist's User page but the Wikipedia:Facebook, it seems abundantly clear that either Afc and CunningLinguist are the same person, or else they are friends having us on. Not ealso that CunnningLinguist never made an edit to Afc's Talk page asking him if he wanted to be an admin, nor did he notify him that this nomination had been made. RickK 08:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • We are friends, check IPs if you wish and I told him through IM. As far as I have seen, it isnt against the rules to nominate your friends? -CunningLinguist 08:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • No my goodman, I am most certainly not CunningLinguist. I am much more the sutdmuffin than what he could ever aspire to be. But, we are friends. As for the way in which Cunning approched me about this here nomination; I beleive that it is known as the Internet. I can think of many ways to contact people over the Internet, all but one of which does not relate to Wikipedia. -Da 'Sco Mon 08:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • You are not helping your already failing nomination by attacking other editors and their comments of your work on Wikipedia. An admin is expected to be courteous when communicating with other Wikipedians, and it seems that you do not feel people should be allowed to express their views on your contributions. RFA is designed not only to elect admins, but also to provide feedback on users and their behaviour on Wikipedia, and you have shown a disregard for the Wikiquette ideals. Harro5 09:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
          • Kind sir, I was merely responding to one gentleman who considered my thought out answers a joke, and to yourself that considered me a joke, that I am neither. I am all about free speech and though both opinions are against me I in no way wished for then to me silenced, I merely felt that I should clear up misunderstandings. I could attack editors on the same basis you have comment upon here but choose not to do so because I do consider myself considerate. -Da 'Sco Mon 09:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • When all of this nonsense is done, can we move this page to BJAODN? RickK 09:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • The answer to question 1 is a ripoff of Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address. See here for transcript. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 10:50, Jun 6, 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. My fellow Wikipedians, Seven days from now, after half a year in the service of our community, I may or may not lay down the responsibilities of being merely just a user, in traditional and solemn ceremony, as the authority of the Adminship is vested in me by the review of my peers and cohorts. This evening I come to you with a message of edit-making and possible danger in the hopes that I may move you to vote in one way rather than the other, and to share a few final thoughts with you before what may be my accension greater responsibilities, my wikipedians. Like every other user, I wish the other candidates, and all who will labor with them, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all. Our users and visitors expect their Admins to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of Wikipedia. My own relations with the Admins, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of my school pointed me to Wikipedia, have since ranged to the intimate during the war to make Wikipedia great, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past months. In this final relationship, the Admins have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the communal good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Wikipedia should go forward. Throughout Wikipedias's adventure in open content, its basic purposes have been to foster progress in human achievement. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free user base. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt. Progress toward this noble goal is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the community. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile editor -- global in scope, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with the enitre project at stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent human betterment. Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in unregistered user editing; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel. But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in the goal of the program; balance between cost and hoped for advantage, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a community and the duties imposed by the community upon the individual user, balance between actions of the moment and the communal welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. Down the long lane of the history yet to be written Wikipedia knows that this world of ours, ever growing larger, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the editing table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of destructive editing, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight. But, as persons of reason as we all are, we know that destructive and conterporductive vadalism will continue now and in the future, in an organized or singular manner. Happily, I can say that the efforts of those who would wish Wikipedia be dissolved have been voided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As an Admin, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the community advance along that road by contributing my knowledge in resolving disputes, searching out pages created for malicious or unproductive efforts, countering vandals and their hateful edits, and involving myself in the merging and removing of duplicate pages as there appears to be a long list of pages requiring this service. Thank you.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. To all the users of the community, I once more give expression to Wikipedia's continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourge of ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all users will come to work together in a harmony guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect. With that said, the contributions to Wikipedia I am most proud of are my work on the El Salvador and Brentwood School (Los Angeles) pages. I fell that my contributions to the Brentwood School (Los Angeles) have made it a model for all other school pages found on wikipedia. On the other hand, I feel that I have helped bring El Salvador's page up to the standards set by pages of other nations after finding it in a state of incompletion and filled with updated facts and commentary. I did this after having nominated it on Article Improvement Drive and having nothing done with it. I feel that shows my motivation to help improve what is Wikipedia.
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. No, I don't believe I have been in conflicts over editing.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_AfC_4200.html"