Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Lord Voldemort 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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


[edit] Lord Voldemort

Final (156/4/3) ended 17:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lord Voldemort (talk • contribs) – Lord Voldemort has been a Wikipedian since June, 2005, and has just garnered his 6000th edit. He has been nominated for adminship once before, in October, 2005: I actually opposed the Dark Lord's first Request for Adminship, and have come to regret that decision. As I have since learned, LV is a calm, judicious, widely-admired user who could make good use of the administrator's tools. His talk page gives good evidence that many Wikipedians assume he is already an admin., as he is often requested to perform janitorial functions. I believe it is time to allow him (or burden him, as the case may be) with the duty to attend to these oh-so-fun cleanup tasks. Wikipedia will be a better place with an empowered Dark Lord to see to its safety!

So humble is the Dark Lord that he declined my previous attempt to renominate in January, which is why this nomination is technically his third. His wisdom in declining at a time he felt unready only deepened my respect for him, and further enchanced my belief that he is an exceptionally thoughtful editor, who would employ the mop with great care. Xoloz 16:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: To start, let me thank Xoloz for being very patient and understanding with my reluctance to accept another nomination. I have decided to alter the standard nom a bit, and if you feel you don't like editors who do that, feel free to oppose. I, like many others, view adminship as not that big of a deal. But conversely, not being made admin is also not that big a deal, so if consensus shows the community doesn't think I'm worthy or ready, I'll be just fine with that. I won't take any offense.
Second, my apologies to Xoloz if my less-than-standard nom setup causes me to fail. (No one likes to see something they proposed fail, eh?) I was just growing a bit tired of the usual RfA-type stuff. I will try to answer the questions, but more in paragraph form than straight question and answer form. (Hey this is an encyclopedia, we should be able to handle a little reading, no?)
I think the thing I would most use adminship for is the real RfA-cliche #1... rollback. Sometimes I grow tired of vandalism and wish I had a better way of fighting it. Also, to help cleanup some of the backlogs. I think particularly RfDs, but some AfDs and CSDs as well. I wouldn't be afraid to block where warranted, although I think the new "Admins not afraid to make difficult blocks" page may be a little overkill. (Sorry, SV)
I guess some might say I am a WikiGnome, just doing the little things. No, I haven't written the majority of a Featured Article. I am proud of my contributions, though, and feel I have made WP a better place. One really dumb thing I really like was a series of edits I made to Talrias' user and talk page starting back around 19:35, 5 December 2005. What can I say, I amuse myself easily. I am very eager to welcome newcomers and have tried to stand up for "anon" users. I know none of this requires adminship, but most of what we do around here doesn't. :-) I think I have made Wikipedia a bit nicer place to be. I have worked with those I disagreed with (politically, religiously, Wikipolitically, etc.), and hope I have shown to be a moderate voice in certain heated situations. Am I perfect, hell no. Who is? As anyone can see from my last nom, I have had some problems in my past, but hope to have shown in the past 6 months that I have moved on. I won't rehash the whole situation again, but not for a want to hide it, more as a matter of room and fact we've been over it before. I am perfectly willing to discuss it again though if someone would like to. My Wikilife is an open book, so to speak.
Well, I guess that's about it. I would, however, like to add a couple of final things. First, if you are supporting me just to get a thank you message, don't bother. I'm not giving messages to all that support. Only a very few may get one. Second, please don't question anyone's opposition comments. They are entitled to their opinion, and some people may want to oppose, but not disclose the reason. I am perfectly fine with that. Closing BCrat, I don't want to tell you how to do your job, but don't discount these votes out-of-hand. Well, that's it. Comment away. Oh yeah, almost forgot, I accept. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Spoiler warning: Plot and/or ending details follow.

Support

  1. Super-duper Strong Nominator Support Xoloz 16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. I have interacted with LV before. Should make for a gread Admin. Redux 17:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. edit-conflict Support Had several worthwhile interactions with the Dark Lord, and believe he'll only use his admin powers for good non-dastardly reasons. Syrthiss 17:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support - having encouraged this user to request adminship months ago, it is time. Xoloz is right about LV's calmness and judiciousness. NoSeptember talk 17:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong support I sat out Lord Voldemort's last admin vote because I wasn't convinced by the arguements either pro or con with regards to handing LV the admin mop. Since then, though, I have been impressed by LV's ability and calm attitude and think that LV will make a great admin. I should also state that I tend to be very conservative in my votes for admin and I believe LV has a proven track record to support becoming an admin. While the issues raised in LV's first RfA were valid, since then LV has risen above those issues, shown an ability to learn from mistakes, and has massively grown as an editor.--Alabamaboy 17:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Under the Imperius Tom Marvolo Riddle has me under his control Computerjoe's talk 17:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Vote-which-must-not-be-named. Welcome to the Potter-cabal. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 17:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. Strong Support Harry Potter jokes aside, Voldemort is a model user and would make an excellent admin. --D-Day(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?) 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. I'm so sorry but I just want that little fraud Harry Potter beaten so badly I must support. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Great user, easy support. This should break 200. Rx StrangeLove 18:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support, no problems here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. Unlikely to abuse admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. LV's comments in Project space are reliably helpful -- I'd like to see more candidates that I can say this about. Jkelly 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support per nom and well-thought-out opening statement above. --Elkman - (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Support Jaranda wat's sup 19:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support - no complaints about You-Know-Who —Whouk (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 19:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strongest Possible Qualified Support - it is a distinct honor to even vote in this RfA: LV is hands down, one of the nicest guys on Wikipedia. He is an asset not only to the goals of this Project, but to the community as well. There are very few more qualified to be an admin than he, and admin tools would be in the perfect hands with this user. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, and delighted to get another chance to do so. I followed his first RfA, and couldn't make up my mind, so didn't vote at all. Since then, I've noticed his contributions, and have absolutely no doubt that he's deserving of the tools. He's helpful, and he follows our policies. AnnH ♫ 20:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support - He seems capable and trustable. Afonso Silva 20:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support, good user. Kusma (討論) 20:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per nom. AndyZ t 20:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support - definitely. Sango123 (e) 20:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  24. Dark Mark Support. Very good editor, long merited this. BD2412 T 20:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support, sure. Voldy (ahem, The Dark Lord) has learned and demonstrated a lot of Wikipedia policies and procedures since his first RfA. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. "I think the thing I would most use adminship for is the real RfA-cliche #1... rollback. Sometimes I grow tired of vandalism and wish I had a better way of fighting it." I felt the same way before I became an admin. You are more than worthy of the mop. Royboycrashfan 21:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support JoshuaZ 21:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support — Ilyanep (Talk) 21:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. I've been impressed by LV for a good period of time now, and have seen him making thoughtful, anti-inflammatory comments on a number of occasions. (Too many diffs to sort through to find them, sorry.) He's also the only editor I have ever made an explicit offer of RfA-nomination to, so I'm very happy to support. But please try to avoid the temptation to delete all Muggles. It will only cause strife and finish up at WP:DRV. -Splashtalk 21:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. LV is a very thoughtful editor who will clearly make a good admin. He has improved a lot since his last nomination, which I opposed. Rje 21:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Would make a very good admin. Hand over the mop and bucket to him. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. See no cause for concern, aside from him being pure evil, hating muggles, etc. Jayjg (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support, per Jayjg. Palmiro | Talk 21:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support.-gadfium 22:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Positive interactions, great history. ~ PseudoSudo 22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Excellent editor. --TantalumTelluride 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support for the same reasons as last time. I like his sense, and see no cause for concern here. Dmcdevit·t 22:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. Seems balanced, thoughtful, and judicious. Bucketsofg 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. I supported last time, and I'm glad to do it again. I'm convinced that LV will make a great admin. Canderson7 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. An all-round, good, decent, respectable contributor. I personally have not bumped into LV, however, his thoroughness in this RfA tells me that he is prepared to serve the community well. --Jay(Reply) 23:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  41. Avada Kedavra I mean support. I wanted to nominate him myself. Even temperament, learns from mistakes, and plus, my edit to his userpage still stands. :-) What can I say? Hermione1980 23:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  42. Cliché support, I thought he already was an admin! Kimchi.sg | talk 23:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. LV may not be the paragon of WP-Nice, but he has demonstrated a maturing attitude and presence. "We are none of us perfect, eh?" -- MarcoTolo 23:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. There is not a single logical reason to oppose. Great editor. DarthVader 23:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    I must say there's some humour in someone named Darth Vader supporting someone named Lord Voldemort, but I can't quite think of anything witty to hammer the point home. Wait- Axis of evil? Perfect! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Alas that there is no User:Sauron to round it out. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 @ 01:37 UTC
    I am still biding my time in Mirkwood, but those who doubt me will come to regret it. TheNecromancer 15:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Opposed last time- I feel he's ready now. Borisblue 00:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  46. Cliché. NSLE (T+C) at 00:38 UTC (2006-04-19)
  47. Support seen this person around a lot, great user, this one's pretty obvious.--Alhutch 00:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support per all above. Great contributor. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 @ 01:37 UTC
  49. Please consider answering the questions if you can... but you're a fine candidate either way. Support ++Lar: t/c 02:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support Joe I 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Excellent character. Keep it up. (^'-')^ Covington 02:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support. All experiences have been positive; will make a good admin. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. I have seen LV make good contributions in places, seems plenty experienced and to have good judgement. Georgewilliamherbert 03:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. — nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 03:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support; my recent interactions with this user and an additional sampling of his interactions with others suggest that he's now ready to take on more responsibilities. And I definitely support answering questions on talk pages and changing the RfA format. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Currently, there is only one admin to every ~1,220 articles and ~1434 users. I.E., they number at just ~0.07% of the total population on Wikipedia. I'd say that is too few. At least 0.1% would be adequate. An idea you should apply if deemed necessary- Watch any new admin's actions closely for the first thirty days to make sure they are fit for the job. --Shultz IV 03:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  58. SupportHumble and friendly wikipedians are my favorite. Patman2648 04:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC) After Midnight
  59. Support, seems the polar opposite of his assumed username. -- Samir (the scope) 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support No problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. LV has become a great user since his first RFA, and I am confident he will be a great admin. Rhobite 05:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  62. support. No reason to oppose (there wasn't last time, either) Grutness...wha? 05:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support this time. JIP | Talk 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support with pleasure. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Very good and responsible contributor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. No valid reason not to. Silensor 07:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  67. Strong Support He deserves this. Banez 07:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. He seems trustworthy. Just a shame about the name. RicDod 09:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  69. LV! LV! LV!-- 陈鼎翔 贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support. Will make good admin. -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  15:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. A fine potential admin. --HolyRomanEmperor 16:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  72. Unconditional support Ashibaka tock 17:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. Good Lord, of course! Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  74. Wikliche "I thought he was already an admin Support. However, I must take this opportunity to extract my vengeance: MUCKMUCKMUCKMUCKMUCK!!! MUUAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHA!!!!! There, that feels much better. JDoorjam Talk 19:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  75. Aye. Coulda sworn he was one, and am surprised the user has failed once already. Good editor. Steve block The wikipedian meme 19:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  76. Yes. Is less likely to abuse admin powers than Ming the Merciless. The Land 20:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support, hope you make WP:100. haz (user talk) 20:24, 19 April 2006
  78. Support For all the reasons I nominated him the first time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support of the "if not him, then who?" variety. Gwernol 21:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  80. Cliched "Could've sworn he was a death eater!" Support: Very friendly user who is delightfully evil and well versed in Wikipedia policies. _-M o P-_ 22:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
  81. Image:Hand with thumbs up.jpg per above. —Khoikhoi 00:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support. I normally don't support users who might eradicate Harry Potter with their new tools, but anyway... Fetofs Hello! 00:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  83. Morsmordre! The Minister of War has a point below about that userpage edit; that wasn't a good idea. But it's not a big deal compared to the many good edits I've seen from LV throughout my time here. --Allen 01:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  84. Keeps calm on heated talk pages. Derex 02:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support, and a well-deserved one. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support, as my experiences with have been posative; Not crazy about the Dark Side connotations but have to admit user name is superior to some other fine arts allusions, such as Miss Piggy. <G> FrankB 04:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-04-20 08:19Z
  88. Support, excellent editor. --Terence Ong 10:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support, because otherwise he'll track my family down and have his Death Eaters torture them to death. No, wait, that's the real You Know Who. Support to this one is on the basis of him being a very good editor who is involved in many areas and could use the keys to the janitor's closet to work more efficiently. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 10:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support. The Minister of War (Peace) 10:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support. FYI, Snape is a double agent (triple agent?). Kaisershatner 17:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  92. Strong Support from one of the Dark Lords faithful. Joking aside, LV is a fine wikipedian who welcomed me when I first started out and have seen nothing but good work from him. He'll make a great administrator. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support despite minor reservations regarding the choice of user name per reasons given by oppose votes. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 20:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  94. Extreme "OMGWWTFBBG!!!111one!1eleven1!!" support - another joke nom - how immature! --Celestianpower háblame 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  95. A Come on WP:100 support Moe ε 20:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Strong support, Really he deserves to be a sysop. A very great contributor. Shyam (T/C) 21:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC), oops, I wanted to vote for Humus sapiens. Sorry for inconenience, Shyam (T/C) 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  96. Strong Support, an excellent Wikipedian. Desrves to be an administrator. Ω Anonymous anonymous Ψ: ''Have A Nice Day'' 21:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support, per all of the above.-Polotet 22:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support, THAW. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support no reservations--MONGO 00:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support WP:100 :) ^_^ — Deckiller 01:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  101. 101 Dalmations Support —Locke Cole • t • c 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  102. Bonus Support if I get to ride a broomstick. Great future admin. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 03:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support. I usually don't do the pile on voting, but I've encountered this user a lot both here and at Wikibooks, and he's always struck me as adminstrator material. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support. This guy deserves the mop more than virtually anyone else on the project. Good grief, I've though he was one for a very, very long time. Wikipedia's a better place because of LV. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 04:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support many contributions and in dire need of a mop. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support. — TheKMantalk 10:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support, whilst desperately trying to avoid any 'thought he was an admin already' cliches ... I thought he was an admin already. Proto||type 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support - Liberatore(T) 12:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support--Jusjih 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support, even though his name is that which should not be named; (I kind of thought he already was an Admin!) --Mhking 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support as first time round ~ Veledan • Talk 14:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support I hardly ever come by RFA anymore as I rarely recognize many of the names anymore -- but I'm rather surprised to see that LV is not already an admin. older ≠ wiser 14:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support just a good user. The 6 months between the noms was a tad too long. feydey 17:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support - Not that he'd need my vote, but seems to be a good user deserving of the mop. —Mirlen 17:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support with pleasure. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 17:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  116. Strong support, good editor, would make a great admin. --Rory096(block) 17:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  117. Support. Ral315 (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support. Looks good. — Rebelguys2 talk 18:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support. +sj + 18:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support happily. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  121. Support, excellent interactions with the user during the intial stages of the semi-protection proposal, although I'm worried that Hermione supporting and Harry not doing so would cause a rift between those two. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support!, absolutely! I have always had the best of interactions with this user. He is always courteous, and often amusing. :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natalya (talk • contribs) .
  123. Support --Tone 20:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  124. Guettarda 20:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  125. Robert 21:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  126. Strong, Über support. No question here.--Adam (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    Um ... is this in the wrong place? Proto||type 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (NOTE: This was originally in the oppose section --Rory096(block) 22:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC))
  127. Support -- best acceptance I've read in a long time. John Reid 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  128. Snape kills Dumbledore --Cyde Weys 23:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  129. Support Wow... you're not a sysop already? --M@thwiz2020 23:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  130. Another WTFNOTALREADYADMIN?! Support -Obli (Talk)? 23:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  131. Support. Thought he was one already. Pepsidrinka 00:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  132. Avada Kedavra Support, wouldn't abuse The Unforgivable Curses. Overall, a well-rounded, way-too-humble, Dark Lord. --Andy123(talk) 03:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  133. Support. SorryGuy 05:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  134. Support. Very good. ×Meegs 08:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  135. Support Merecat 09:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  136. Support as per LV's favourite support comment. I am also impressed with his comments about not personally thanking everyone who voted here - my feelings exactly. Thryduulf 11:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  137. Strong support, of course :) Mushroom (Talk) 11:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  138. Strong support--StabiloBoss 12:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  139. Support. Joyous | Talk 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  140. Support - it doesn't take a legilimens to spot that this user shold have been promoted a long time ago. Rob Church (talk) 19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  141. Support - excellent editor; I've seen him interact thoughtfully which strongly suggests he has what is probably the most important quality an admin can have. --Deville (Talk) 21:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  142. Support The death eaters forced me to! Funnybunny (talk/Vote for this policy) 01:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  143. Just barely support. I admit that my experience with this user is minimal, which is why I could not in good conscience vote oppose. This was a tough decision, because I would prefer an admin to be a bit more...verbose, I guess. I guess I'm just not a short answer kind of guy. Nonetheless, this RFA will surely pass, and I trust the opinions of my fellow editors when they say that this will be a great admin for the project. --Danaman5 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  144. Support GilliamJF 06:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  145. Oppose, killed many people during his reign of terrorSupport Will (E@) T 18:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  146. Support per above.—G.He 20:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  147. Super Jedi Support per the mass editors above. Jedi6-(need help?) 22:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  148. Support Whopper 01:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  149. Strong Support We can use some Avada Kedavra against vandals Primate#101 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  150. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  151. Support - Pureblade | Θ 15:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  152. Support. Obviously this vote will have no real effect on the outcome of this nomination, but I just have to throw another voice into the crowd. This should have been done long ago. Coffee 16:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  153. Support. the wub "?!" 17:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  154. Support. Looks like a dedicated wikipedian: bold, headstrong, and all the other stuff we're looking for. As a side note, I can't believe there are users judging him by his name instead of his contribs. That's something really disappointing to see at an Rfa: votes on the basis of superficiality.--The ikiroid (talk parler hablar paroli 说 話し parlar) 17:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  155. Support. As a Sith, I normally support a different type of "Dark Lord", but I pledge myself and my lightsaber to your teachings, my master. More seriously, I see this user around a lot and have never seen any conduct unbecoming of an administrator, or even unbecoming of a Wikipedian. I feel that this user will not abuse administrator priviledges, and will put them to good use. Good luck. --Darth Deskana (talk page) (my RfA!) 18:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  156. Support The great lord Xenu would. Quentin Pierce 20:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose I like LV and appreciate his actually waiting before a second renom, but I cannot support for several reasons. First an admin should know not to use a fair use image for his user page (WP:USER). I'm also not crazy that he uses a character's name for a user name. Basing your online identity on another person's character has always seemed immature to me. Third, despite Xolox's nom, I'm not sure that I can trust him. I haven't looked through some of his more recent edits, but some of his earlier edits show a brusqueness unsuitable for an admin, even if he has reformed. Best of luck otherwise! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Let me get this straight - you're opposing him because of his nickname? Online handles have existed almost since there was an "online". It's useful simply as a way of recalling and referring to someone, and occasionally reveals a little about a person's interests and/or personality. Opposing someone because they're a HP fan with an ironic sense of humor is absurd. --Bachrach44 14:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose This guy scares the hell out of me. I see him flitting around everywhere I go whispering in people's ears, trying to stir up controversy and trouble, acting like he's everyone's servant while egging editors into attacking each other. Lord Voldemort feeds on contention. I've seen him play both sides of the fence more than once when, if it weren't for him, there wouldn't be any fence, or any trouble at all. There are only three people who scare me at Wikipedia. For the sake of harmonious editing, it would be a mistake to let any of them have admin power. --Carla Pehlke 04:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    These are very serious accusations. Do you have difs that might support them? JoshuaZ 04:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    User has less than 20 edits and been here since March, and before today last edit was April 6th. That's very little time spent here to "know" an editor so in-depth, and to make such serious accusations. Questionable. NSLE (T+C) at 05:18 UTC (2006-04-20)
    If I thought it might sway either of you, I would go through his edits and find plenty of examples of what I'm talking about, but I think you already know and hope that you can use this dark force for your own needs. Just remember that Lord Voldemort plays both sides against the middle, and he is always the only one who comes out ahead. --Carla Pehlke 13:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    You realize that this isn't the real Lord Voldemort, right? --Dragon's Blood 13:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, this is the real Lord Voldemort. The other one is fictional.  :-) Dragons flight 21:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    You said "there are only three people who scare me at Wikipedia" - who are the other two? BD2412 T 21:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Maybe User:DarthVader and User:BorgQueen? Or what about User:Sauron, User:Cthulhu, User:Unicron, or User:Takhisis? JIP | Talk 09:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
    Carla, without diffs, it would be very hard for us 'crats to consider your oppose vote. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    I don't know about the rest of you, but I would be scared of an editor who makes more than 1000 edits while on wikibreak (^_~). NoSeptember talk 01:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. A user taking a name from a copyrighted book is a little on the grey side for an encyclopedia concerned with the appearance of copyright fidelity. It looks even less professional that the user's name is that of a "dark lord" of a children's book. I think the grey area turns black when the user wants adminship. Personally, I don't want anyone named Lord Voldemort representing a professional venture to which I contribute. --Dragon's Blood 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment As opposed to someone whose name is that of a bodily fluid from a mythical creature? If we start applying these sorts of standards pretty soon the only users who can be admins will be people with boring user names like mine. JoshuaZ 15:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Putting aside the fact that all Harry Potter and related ideas, etc. are copyrighted by JK Rowling and Warner Bros., Dragon's blood is a deep red plant resin used to varnish the finest violins. It is a non-copyrighted name associated with me and the company I work for, and nothing at all like taking a title from the arch-enemy of a wizard in a popular children's book. --Dragon's Blood 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, so your user name promotes your company? (And by the way, if you are "Putting aside the fact that all Harry Potter and related ideas, etc. are copyrighted" then it is a bit odd to then just talk about the copyright concern). Do you see how easy it is to find ways to object to user names? JoshuaZ 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Joshua, might I suggest to let it go. If he wishes to oppose, it's his right. He's entitled to his opinion, and his criticism may be vaild. I'd recommend dropping it. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I am more bothered by the use of the initials "LV", a clear rip off of the initials of the city of Las Vegas ;-). NoSeptember talk 19:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Oh dear. Am I unfairly hawking World War II memorobilia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by D-Day (talk • contribs) .
    Short phrases, names, and titles, even if unique, are not subject to copyright law. They may be subject to trademark or unfair competition laws though. I have no idea whether "Lord Voldemort" is trademarked, but as I doubt there is any risk of creating confusion in the marketplace, I doubt there is any real legal concern here. Dragons flight 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Ditto. Copyright law does not apply here. Lord Voldy prob. is trademarked, but our editor friend here is not SELLING anything, so no cause of action will arise for TM infringement. Now the real question - who wins a fight between Dragons flight and Dragon's Blood? (And why is there no possessive apostrophe in Dragons flight - shouldn't it be Dragon's flight?) BD2412 T 21:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, Tawker looked it up, and the name is trademarked [1][2], but like BDA said, I am not profiting in any way, nor affecting their ability to profit from it. And I am not trying to pass myself off as the real LV, Las Vegas or otherwise. :-) --LV (Dark Mark) 21:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. weak (obviously) Oppose I wasn't going to vote at all because I didnt see much point but I dont want an administrator who wont stand up for himself, and his response to the above votes was lackluster, KI 02:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    Comment You are opposing because he's too polite in his responses? When people respond more strongly in RfAs they often get more oppose votes for being defensive. Is this Ganto's Axe? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs) .

Neutral

  1. Neutral, Shyam (T/C) 19:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral. Although I might be tempted to support if you explain this userpage vandalism [3] The Minister of War (Peace) 09:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Vandalism? ? I am a stickler, I guess. I'm not sure I would consider it vandalism though. --LV (Dark Mark) 16:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    Is this a joke? It is clearly not vandalism. DarthVader 05:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    I agree with Lord Voldemort and DarthVader (ooh, scary!). It doesn't look like vandalism at all. On the contrary, if it were my user page, I'd be happy to have native English speakers correct my grammar, spelling and punctuation. I will mercilessly revert edits whose purpose is to insult me though. JIP | Talk 09:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Errr yeah it was a joke. Not a good one apparently, but it was a joke! The Minister of War (Peace) 10:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    Ah ok that's fine then :) Sorry...I was pretty sure it was a joke but I wasn't certain. I have seen pettier things called vandalism. Thanks for the clarification. DarthVader 10:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral until I know more. Could go either way on this. Remaining neutral per portions of your opening statement and answers to two of Tawker's questions. Looks like you'll succeed though. Good luck. — Apr. 20, '06 [16:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>
    Neutral until question number 4 is answered (the hard one). --American Saga 01:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Zephram Stark sock puppet.
  3. Neutral per American Saga --Gary Kirk (talk) 10:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • See Lord Voldemort's edit count and contribution tree with Interiot's tool and the edit summary usage with Mathbot's tool.
  • Updated edit count (saying toolserver's not updated:
  • Total edits 5955
  • Distinct pages edited 2862
  • Average edits/page 2.081
  • First edit 18:05, 9 June 2005
  • (main) 1899
  • Talk 843
  • User 316
  • User talk 1800
  • Image 18
  • Image talk 1
  • MediaWiki talk 1
  • Template 30
  • Template talk 16
  • Category 1
  • Category talk 2
  • Wikipedia 696
  • Wikipedia talk 332

I just thought I'd also mention that I am an Admin over on Wikibooks, although not the most active there. I thought I'd mention it here, just in case anyone wanted to know if I had any Admin experience. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. 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: See opening statements
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A: See opening statements
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: See opening statements
4. How would you resolve the following conflict: A new user edits an article which leads to a revert war with a member of the arbitration committee. You think that the new user's edit improves the article. Neither party will yield, compromise or give you any additional information. Do you side with the new user or with the member of the arbitration committee?
A: Duh... if I think the new user's edits are actually improving the article, I'd side with them. ArbCom members are people too. Everyone can make mistakes. Everyone can have an opinion on matters. Sometimes the opinions of editors conflict with those of members of ArbCom. Now, if they are revert warring because someone's a sock, etc. Then they are well within their right to revert the edits of thie "brand new user".


Question from JoshuaZ

1 Your opening essay did a good job of answering questions 1 and 2, but I'd prefer more detail for three. Could you give specifc examples of conflicts you have been in and discuss them a bit more?
Tried to answer on user's talk page.
The answer is here. Was kinda tempted to move it here, seems silly to me to spread your answers around. The Minister of War (Peace) 09:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Tawker stolen borrowed from JoshuaZ and Rob Church and NSLE. They are 100% optional but may help myself or other voters decide. If I have already voted please feel free to ignore these questions though other editors might find them to be of use. You can also remove the questions you dont' want to touch if you like :)

Well, I must say there are quite a few questions here. Mind slimming this list down some? I don't really mind answering them all, just feel this is a little overboard. Could any of these be asked directly to my talk page? Just let me know. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. You find out that an editor, who's well-known and liked in the community, has been using sockpuppets abusively. What would you do?
    A. Ask them about it. First line of defense is communication. If they continue, alert the AN or ANI, and block according to policy.
  2. While speedying articles/clearing a backlog at CAT:CSD, you come across an article that many users agree is patent nonsense. A small minority, of, say, three or four disagree. Upon looking the article over, you side with the minority and feel that the article is salvagable. Another admin then speedies it while you are making your decision. What would you do?
    A. Better to hear the case out than delete outright. What we see as patent nonsense might actually not be. I've seen some CSDs that turned out to be decent enough articles. AfD is almost always better than CSD where a dispute has arisen. If it really is patent nonsense, consensus will show that, and then it can be deleted.
  3. You speedy a few articles. An anon keeps recreating them, and you re-speedy them. After dropping a note on their talk page, they vandalise your user page and make uncivil comments. You realise they've been blocked before. What would you do? Would you block them, or respect that you have a conflict of interest?
    A. Probably page protect and {{deletedpage}}. I've mentioned several times on the AN that people shouldn't block if they are involved. How hard is it to take two seconds to ask someone to look into it? Not very hard. People are always around.
  4. An editor asks you to mediate in a dispute that has gone from being a content dispute to an edit war (but not necessarily a revert war), with hostile language in edit summaries (that are not personal attacks). One involved party welcomes the involvement of an admin, but the other seems to ignore you. They have both rejected WP:RFC as they do not think it would solve anything. Just as you are about to approach the user ignoring you, another admin blocks them both for edit warring and sends the case to WP:RFAR as a third party. Would you respect the other admin's decisions, or would you continue to engage in conversation (over email or IRC) and submit a comment/statement to the RFAR? Let's say the ArbCom rejects the case. What would you do then?
    A. Well, first let me say, and this might upset some people, that I do NOT use IRC. It's my belief that almost all wiki stuff can be done on the wiki. If impossible, email works for me. As to the question, I'd respect the other admins decision, but ask them to perhaps grant them a little leeway. No need to block where a little conversation can clear things up.
  5. If you could change any one thing about Wikipedia what would it be?
    A. All these questions. ;-) I do have a user talk page, ya know? I mean, to paraphrase Homer Simpson, "I’m just trying to get in the Cabal, I’m not running for Jimbo".
  6. Under what circumstances will you indefinitely block a user without any prior direction from Arb Com?
    A. Is this a test of policy knowledge? I actually don’t really see myself blocking too many people, to be honest. Let’s hope I never have to.
  7. Suppose you are closing an AfD where it would be keep if one counted certain that you suspect are sockpuppets/meatpuppets and would be delete otherwise. The RCU returns inconclusive, what do you do? Is your answer any different if the two possibilities are between "no consensus" and "delete"?
    A. Well, the debate should be just that, a debate, not a vote, so strict numbers would have little to do with it. We are promoted to sysop to handle these tough decisions, so at that time, I would make it based on the debate taking place. This one is just a little ‘’too’’ hypothetical. But in general, keeping articles doesn’t hurt us too much.
  8. Do you believe there is a minimum number of people who need to express there opinions in order to reasonably close an AfD? If so, what is that number? What about RfDs and CfDs?
    A. Well, if PROD has shown us anything, it is that very rarely do we need a lot of people discussing the deletion of a page. In those instances where we need a lot of discussion, we tend to get it. But I think there is a reasonable minimum number that exists. It is low, and I am not really in favor of re-listing AfDs over and over in order to get a certain number of people to comment. Common sense prevails in most cases. If not, there’s always deletion review, or a second AfD nom.
  9. A considerable number of administrators have experienced, or are close to, burnout due to a mixture of stress and vitriol inherent in a collaborative web site of this nature. Do you feel able to justify yourself under pressure, and to not permit stress to become overwhelming and cause undesirable or confused behaviour?
    A . I think I handle pressure just fine. I know when I need a break from it all, and I do so.
  10. Why do you want to be an administrator?
    A. See opening statements.
  11. In your view, do administrators hold a technical or political position?
    A. I know the answer is “supposed” to be technical, and it is, but I feel a lot of people downplay the “political”, so to speak, aspect of adminship. Yes, you are not granted a superior status, but Admins ‘’are’’ looked up to. They tend to be the face of Wikipedia to newcomers, etc. Do I think Admins are in a political position, yes… but not by choice. Many people not “in the know” will say things like, “OMG look what this ADMIN did”, etc. (see Jimbo’s talk page ;-))


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 talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_adminship_Lord_Voldemort_3_3569.html"