Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This discussion took place long before the RfA page was restructured with subpages. I am simply copying the contents from the history of the main page [1] since on a subpage it is more readily accessible. Gadykozma 15:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jor; (19/14/2) ends 05:10, 5 April, 2004 (UTC) — Refused

Jor has been here for more than three months and in that time has made 3800 edits. Lots of productive work done. He deserves to be a sysop. Meelar 05:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the nomination. Having read Wikipedia:Administrators, I accept. — Jor (Talk) 10:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Given the hatred and hostility that this has spawned I no longer wish to accept this nomination, and perhaps should reconcider contributing to the Wikipedia completely. — Jor (Talk) 19:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Support:

  • Fun contributions. Support. Fennec 05:15, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. Support. Nicely edited a lot of esoterica and is dedicated. Cecropia 05:17, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support. Thought he already was one. :) RADICALBENDER★ 05:20, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Great contributions, and, in my experience, a very personable person. Also, I'm not sure if it was intentional, but Jor's having the bizarre 'Inserted by a true Eldar' comment at the top of their talk page never ceases to amuse me. Chris Roy 06:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. Support. →Raul654 14:53, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
  5. Speaking from my experience with Jor, he is an excellent editor and a reasonable person. I've not been involved in the apparently controversial Polish/German issue, but I am confident based on what I've seen that he would do well. Jwrosenzweig 16:21, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  6. Support. Excellent contributer. Go Jor! -- Itai 18:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Support. I've dealt with Jor/darkelf on several subjects and found him (?) to be reasonable, levelheaded, and conscientious. I for one have been around this particular block enough not to fall for the tired old "he's a nazi/he's a zionist/he's a commie/he's a homo/he's lefthanded" line. In such namecalling the seeds of tyranny lie. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. He has allot of contributions and responded promptly to an inquiry. GrazingshipIV 20:03, Mar 30, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Has done 5 times in 5 months what I have done in 6. :-) Clearly a dedicated contributor. - Woodrow 00:54, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  10. Ryan_Cable 04:08, 2004 Mar 31 (UTC)
  11. Kingturtle 09:35, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  12. Well, everything I've seen from him is just fine. While I see some users I respect voting against him, the sock-puppetry and such going on below suggests that if I'm to judge him by his enemies, he's probably a good apple. Isomorphic 17:01, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Nico 17:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  14. I looked into this, and could only find good edits. I think his detractors make a poor case, but if they can improve it perhaps I'd change my vote. As is the reverts I see him having made don't involve revert wars, but rather correcting poor edits. Sam Spade 21:53, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support. ugen64 03:03, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
  16. Support Ertz 22:35, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  17. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  18. Support, a bit tentatively. I don't know much about Jor, but we had a conflict some months ago and it was resolved amicably due to what I felt was good faith on his part, which is more than I can say for many current admins. Many of the reasons for oppose below (such as Ruhrjung's and Moncrief's) are not compelling. In the German/Polish battle he did seem to me aggressive at times, but I can understand the frustration of dealing with, e.g., Wik, etc., and what I've seen indicates he is more reasonable than to abuse admin status to win edit wars. And if he does, I'm sure he'll get the full treatment (a la 168...) from the vocal critics below. -- VV 09:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

  1. Strongly oppose. Rude German-reactionary POV pusher who asked me "Does this appease your Polish nationalism?" when I tried to call Szczecin by its current name. And later regarding Świnoujście: "I merely shifted them because known vandal User:Wik insists on adding 'former'" and "Screw this, I've better things to do than try and fix Wik's vandalism." See here how Jor changes the correct names Świnoujście and Szczecin, referring to the present Polish cities, to the old German names Swinemünde and Stettin! --Wik 07:00, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
    • I invite anyone to look at the entire edit history of the page and talk page. I admit that seeing all my edits blatantly reverted time after time by "Wik" did frustrate me, and I indeed did take a time out for about a week (which is what the last quote "Wik" gives refers to). The entire story can easily be seen in the article's edit history, but see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wik/Evidence#Jor. — Jor (Talk) 10:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  2. Cautiosly oppose. A person who takes as his own task to "remove from count" votes against himself[2] does not seem to have sufficient trust in other wikipedians — seems too eager to protect his own prestige and too eager to become administrator.--Ruhrjung 13:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • As far as I know anons are not allowed to vote, and this user's contributions are all vandalism. It has nothing to do with the fact this happens to be on my poll, I'd remove it from anyone's vote (and as you can see I left it visible). — Jor (Talk) 13:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  3. Danny 12:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  4. john 02:36, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) lots of German-Central European POV pushing. And I'll note that while I myself have been involved in disputes over Central European article naming issues, I've spent a lot more time fighting against the sock puppet types who've been hurling abuse at Jor than I have against Jor (or Nico). But I'd vote against any of them being made admins. john 02:36, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  5. Pavlvsrex 03:35, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC) Strongly oppose as per above. Too much POV pushing in the anti all-things-Turkish-and-Ottoman department. Use of inflammatory language, unsourced quotes, and extremely one-sided references in the construction of articles concerning highly sensitive subjects. His only objective input relates to Middle Earth and all that dwells therein.
  6. I remember Jor being involved in edit wars, having problems with NPOV, calling opponents "problem users" and "vandals" and so on. He should show that he can do better before being granted adminship. -- Baldhur 13:52, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Edit wars, rude bahaviour. Far away from NPOV. Eon 14:26, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • As was pointed out by Maximum Rex below, this is a sockpuppet account for cautious. →Raul654 14:52, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • I am not anybody puppet. In addition, cautius didn't vote, and I am against Jor, so your comment doesn't seem much reasonable. By the way, where we can review adminship of already admins? Eon 15:05, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  8. Merovingian ↕ Talk 12:05, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC), too edgy.
  9. Oppose - we don't need combatants in Polish-German wars as admins. Secretlondon 17:48, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I am not a combatant in Polish-German wars. I occasionally edit an article touching the issue when I come across clear POV material or have more to add, and then usually am immediately attacked by Wik, Cautious, you, or like-minded users regardless of content. — Jor (Talk) 18:49, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • While I don't follow those wars closely (quite intentionally so), I'd much rather let them police themselves. Pick the most reasonable one in the lot and give him a badge and a gun. →Raul654 18:04, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
      • If we only deputize one, then we don't have enough safeguards against rogue behavior. --Michael Snow 18:45, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • It's not like we don't have checks and balances. There's always the 586 pages devoted to misuses of sysop powers. If someone thinks he's abusing his power, they can list him on one of those. →Raul654 23:15, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. User:Wik is right on. 172 18:20, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I have to admit that some of my trepidation is due to the fact that he is taking such an active role in the voting process for him here. Yikes. (Someone will no doubt point out that there's no rule against doing so. Fine, it's just a personal preference then that those being voted on should back off from constant edits and justifications on the tally). Moncrief 20:19, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • While in most cases I might be inclined to agree with you that it's a cause for worry, this is not a common case. As you can see, his nomination has been attacked by hordes of sock puppets, and even an anon who called him a nazi sympathizer. IMHO, he's well within in right to respond. →Raul654 22:51, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. However, if more time passes and Jor seems to be getting along with the other kids on the block and staying out of POV trouble, then I think he'd make a great sysop. --Alex S 21:49, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. POV-Pusher. Cautious 11:22, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  14. Better safe than sorry—we shouldn't hand out guns to combatants on either side of any major POV conflict. Mkweise 12:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • P.S. Agree with Alex_S, would support in a month or so if he demonstrates an ability to act accordingly in the mean time. Mkweise

Neutral:

  1. Controversial. Concerns regarding his views on POV. Fennec 22:23, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  2. Meelar 05:12, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC). I didn't even realize that this Gdansk/Danzig German/Polish thing existed. In retrospect, this whole thing needs to calm down before I'll support adminship for any participant. Can't you just let the other side push their German/Polish POV for a week while this whole thing cools down? Some of us have an encyclopedia to write. Meelar 19:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately some extremely hostile POV pushers see any change to "their" pages as an attack. Thus "let it cool down" means abandoning a page in perpetuo. — Jor (Talk) 19:17, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
      • Talking about yourself again? --Wik 19:19, Apr 3, 2004 (UTC)
        • Thanks for providing an example, but actually I didn't have you in mind. — Jor (Talk) 19:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
    • Would you two please visit mediation? Has that been tried in this case? I'll serve as an unofficial mediator, if that's what it takes. How can we solve this, either of you? Meelar 19:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Comment:

I don't see explicitly where anons can't vote (maybe I missed it) but insofar as the toctally means anything, perhaps an anon shouldn't count, and I feel it definitely shouldn't count if someone characterizes someone as "Nazi," "Commie," "Racist," or other such term. If they want their vote to be recognized numerically I think they should at least have a user name. Cecropia 14:16, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Anon voting is discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_11 — Jor (Talk) 14:25, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To those who accuse me of POV pushing: examples please. I always try to work out NPOV—which often means including a different POV which may not be to the liking of some users. Neutral Point of View means that both sides of an issue should be highlighted. As for calling users problem users and getting involved with edit wars: Wik. — Jor (Talk) 16:06, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the sock puppet votes, User:ConcernPL, User:Democryt, User:Eon etc., be removed? Nico 20:42, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Jor_d2c0.html"