Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Falcon Kirtaran.09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Falcon Kirtaran (1/5/1) ends 08:30, 9 July 2004

Ordinarily I would not nominate myself for adminship, however without the ability to remove a number of pages I have created, my work on the Dewey Decimal classification will remain a huge mess and probably become even more so. Falcon 04:32, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note: User has edited at Wikipedia since mid-March; currently has ~440 edits. Jwrosenzweig 04:43, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. Sorry, Falcon, but you have not made that many edits. I will support you after you make 600 edits. But you are doing great, and keep up the good work! :-) --Lst27 17:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think we should give him a chance. 480 edits is good enough, considering the quality of his edits. :-) --Lst27 18:47, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Will support after 750+ edits. Sorry. In the meantime, take Chris 73's suggestion, or if something needs to be deleted right away, put {{delete}} at the top of the page. --Merovingian✍Talk 05:01, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)
2. I agree with Merovinginan; Falcon has simply not been a contributor long enough for me to support a self-nomination. As the section heading states, self-nominators should exceed the normal nomination standards by a goodly amount. Also, I am concerned by a claim on this user's talk page that he is not "at all tolerant of pro-corporate POVs, or even a hint thereof." I would find it unsettling to have a sysop who claims to have such an extreme bias. -- Slowking Man 05:12, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

   I'm not supporting Falcon, because of the lack of edits, however I find it morally wrong that people are judging potential admins based on what they say on their user pages. People should be judged by their behaviour, not by their opinions. IMO we should have a number of admins with a diverse range of opinions. The point of a user page is that you can write your own thoughts, opinions and biases. It is the one place where you are free to be POV, to say whatever you please. I don't want non admins frightened to express themselves on their user pages just in case it is used against them at a later date when they are up for adminship. (Sorry to have a go at you Slowking Man, It's nothing personal) theresa knott 15:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   I can't quite agree with you Theresa, especially when you say "morally wrong." NPOV is supposed to be "absolute and non-negotiable"[1]. Now of course most everyone on Wikipedia has a POV, and that is OK, but you are supposed to write, edit and perform duties entrusted to you in a NPOV fashion. Declaring a specific intolerence so strongly for someone seeking adminship requires, at the least, an explanation. And it seems natural to me to go a person's user page to figure out if they are suited to admin duties. This is not a free-speech issue, it's an attitude issue. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:33, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   We are talking about user space not article space here. Of course articles should be NPOV and if anyone pushed a POV in articles I would certainly oppose making them an admin.But this is different. I don't think people should be made to "explain" their opinions before they can be made an admin. Admins must behave well. That's how they should be judged. theresa knott 15:45, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   Please, Theresa, this makes no sense. I'm not asking him to explain his honestly held opinions, I want to know how his declared bias would affect his duties. "Not al all tolerant" is a pretty strong phrase. If he had said he is not "at all tolerant of anti-Nazi POVs" would you say "hey, it's his user space--it's immoral to question it"? -- Cecropia | Talk 15:51, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   Wooah! don't stray so close to Godwin's Law! It's not the questioning that bothers me. It's the questioning in this section(oppose). What if he'd said "I'm not at all tolerant of POV"? Or "I'm not at all tolerant of loud rock music". theresa knott 16:26, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   "Not at all tolerent of POV" would be a plus--he'd be expressing acceptance of a core Wikipedia principle. Why not consider it? "Loud rock music" describes a personal taste. I doubt he would rampage through the non-existent Loud rock music article. But "anti-corporate," something which could cover many articles, especially when combined with "not at all tolerant" and the Wikipedia buzzword "POV" rings a bell. Why should we not conisder it? -- Cecropia | Talk 16:34, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   anti corporate does cover many articles. Has the user rampaged through them so far? theresa knott 17:00, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   Let's get down to brass tacks, Theresa. I did not post the original complaint about "intolerant of anti-corporate" and I'm not sure whether I would consider it important or not if his user history suggests no problems. I'm arguing with your specification that we can't use what a potential admin says on hir userpage in our considerations, and that this is "morally wrong" no less. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:06, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   If it's the phrase "morally wrong" that you are worried about I'm happy to withdraw it.Let me restate my case to make my position clear. I do not believe it right to oppose someones adminship based on their views. Especially when those views are expressed on their own talk page.I don't think people should have to defend their views in order to become admins. The point about adminship is it is a position of power. We have to trust admins not to abuse their powers. The only sensible way IMO to judge whether someone is trustworthy or not is to look at their behaviour. Having said that, I don't really have a problem with people asking questions. But questions, IMO should be on the user talk page, or in the comment section of this page, they should not be in the oppose section. theresa knott 00:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't believe in extensive argumentation here (as we're doing with this back-and-forth) to the point of distraction, but we're not conveying an honorific, we're approving of people with responsibility on Wikipedia, and I think the transparency of discussion here is important. Cecropia | Talk 04:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   My two cents here: there is no such thing as a person with no point of view. People can try their darndest to be objective when writing about particular subjects, but even the most open-minded people have only one set of experiences and are therefore biased. Declaring one's own prejudices on a user page is, in my eyes, an admirable demonstration of self-knowledge and candor. As long as the person demonstrates an effort to write NPOV text, *having* a point of view is not a problem. In fact, identifying our prejudices for the information of our peers assists them to check and balance us. So I guess I'm siding with Theresa here (though I agree that "morally wrong" was too strong). --Woggly 06:59, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

3. Oppose - Falcon, I'd personally suggest you set out how you would go about restructuring these pages in your user page somewhere, or in a suitable article's talk page. Then hopefully a current admin can perform the changes for you (if they think they can be done without going to VfD). Later, when you've more experience like the others are discussing you can (be nominated|nominate yourself) for adminship. We'd be setting a dangerous precedent otherwise. EddEdmondson 16:41, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Not yet enough experience here. Keep working and keep participating :) Try again this autumn. Also, if you need help deleting articles, just tell me what you need done. Kingturtle 17:20, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Not long enough IMO. But I think the above has established that if you have administrative stuff needing to be done, there are people who will help - David Gerard 10:23, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. David Cannon 11:31, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC) Falcon, please keep on doing what you're doing. The Dewey Decimal System classification has the potential to be a very valuable resource, and I'd hate to discourage you. It's only fair to all Wikipedians, however, to hold to uniform promotion rules. Those who vote "NO" are not saying "Never"; most often, they are saying "Yes, but not now." All of us need time to see and judge the quality of an editor's work, and applying the rules evenly to everyone is important. Come back in a couple of months, Falcon, and you'll be in with an excellent chance. I, for one, will support your nomination in a couple of months if you just keep up with what you're doing.

Comments:

• Why don't you list the pages on one of the deletion pages (see: Category:Wikipedia:Deletion)? -- Chris 73 | Talk 04:52, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A few standard questions for admin candidates, if you care to respond:

1. Have you read the section on Administrators?
2. Are you interested in, and do you think you'll have some time to perform, the chores that only sysops have access to do, to help keep Wikipedia up to date?
3. If you become a sysop, which sysop chore or chores (WP:VFD, recent changes, watching for vandals and vandalism, responding to editor requests for assistance, any other) do you especially think you would be able to help with.

Thanks and good luck. -- Cecropia | Talk 14:16, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)