Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Neutrality.08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Neutrality (21/8/4) Ends 04:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality has been an exceptional contributor to Wikipedia. Uploading excellent fairuse images, volunteering with the Association of Members Advocates, making meaningful edits to articles involving history and political science, and contributing positively to community dialog have been Neutrality's hallmarks. I think the community can agree that Neutrality's 2000 edits have been an invaluable addition to Wikipedia, and we should expand the responsiblity of Neutrality to include adminship. --H. CHENEY 04:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to Hcheney and Ambivalenthysteria: the former has been kind to me from the first day, while I look foward to working with the latter as a sysop! (see below) I am confident I can help keep Wikipedia sane (or as sane as it could ever be, anyway) ;) Neutrality 04:46, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)

Support

1. H. CHENEY 04:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. From what I've seen, I couldn't agree more. Ambivalenthysteria 04:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Hephaestos|§ 04:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. Acegikmo1 05:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
5. Woggly 09:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC) the cliche, "thought you were one"
6. EddEdmondson 09:54, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
7. ALargeElk | Talk 10:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
8. 172 13:02, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
9. Quadell (talk) 18:54, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
10. If you've got Hcheney's support, you've got mine. blankfaze | (беседа!) 20:12, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
11. David Cannon 20:45, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC).
12. Strongly support. Lst27 22:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
13. older≠wiser 22:43, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
14. Wile E. Heresiarch 23:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
15. Merovingian✍Talk 07:00, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)
16. Great work nearly single handedly creating Charles Graner. Snowspinner 03:45, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
17. Danny 05:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
18. I can't believe I totally missed this! Of course I support. Mike H 01:11, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)
19. Novelty a mediocre reason to oppose. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
20. --GeneralPatton 22:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
21. David Remahl 14:29, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
22. Support. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 02:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Um...see Vote #19, above. Cribcage 03:39, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Has been a logged in user for less than 2 months. Maximus Rex 22:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   A question, if I may. I respect your vote, but I would like to ask you this: what would make me a better sysop two or three months from now, as opposed to today? Neutrality 04:24, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

2. I can't answer for Maximus Rex, but I can give you an answer. In two or three months we'll know you better, and see more of your work and interaction with the community. I would also point out that the controversy surrounding Quadell which caused several, including you, to vote against him, did not occur until he had been here the three months. This seems to me reinforce the idea that three months perhaps should be a hard minimum. Therefore, I oppose for now. -- Cecropia | Talk 06:49, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
3. Here for under 2 months. Has far less editing experience than sheer number might suggest; most edits have been minor, and to a small number of articles (for instance this cumulative diff for 101 consecutive edits to Dennis Kucinich, only 43 of which were marked as minor). Not always careful about wikiquette; see for instance this blanking of Talk:Charles Graner (an article Neutrality had self-nom'ed on fac), uncharacteristically marked as minor. +sj+

   That said, I loved the work on el Cid... come back in six weeks. +sj+ 16:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   While I respect your decision, I do not believe the blanking of the talk page was a violation of wikietiquette. There were suggestions made to improve the article, and I made them; thus, the comments were irrelevant, and I cleaned up the talk page. I did not, and will not, ever blank or modify a talk page for reasons that could reasonably be defined as not valid (for example, removing constructive criticism of me, or the opinions of someone whom I disagree). That said, I of course respect your vote, thank you for your feedback, and forward to working with you in the future. Happy editing! Neutrality 00:35, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

   One of the three blanked suggestions had been implemented, but two had not (see the current Talk page, where someone has restored the blanked comments). I know you weren't trying to remove criticism; maybe the suggestions were poor ones. But they should still be left up, with a note of "implemented!" or "that's silly", or at worst, archived (with a link to the archive left on the Talk page). +sj+

   I have pledged not to blank any more talk pages. The clear consensus says it's a wikietiquette violation, so I will NOT do that anymore, as a matter of common sense and respect.

   Also, thanks for your comments regarding my work on El Cid! I appreciate them. Neutrality 00:37, Jul 12, 2004 (UTC)

4. VV[[]] 21:32, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree with comments above. Nothing against this user, but too soon.
5. BCorr|Брайен 18:08, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC). I agree -- too soon -- probably in a few weeks.
6. pir 21:27, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
   • I object to counting the votes of users with three letter word usernames. Possible troll. --H. CHENEY 21:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • The problem with making comments like that in text is that is impossible to tell at what level of seriousness to take you. Sarcasm doesn't travel well over the internet. If there is a problem with Pir perhaps it would be better to spell it out directly (I don't know him from Adam, so can't tell if there is or not). PS. Are users ok if they have two numbers as well as three letters in their username? Pcb21| Pete 08:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • Agree with Pcb21, if this is a joke, that should have been made more clear. Three-letter usernames are not at all uncommon, for the simple reason that many people will use first initial, middle initial, last initial. This has nothing to do with whether they will be disruptive. --Michael Snow 16:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • Hi Lir, I mean pir. I'm encouraged that you're only voting with that account. - Hephaestos|§ 04:38, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
     • Give a reason, please. Thank you. Neutrality 04:59, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
       • Err - Pir has been here for ages and edits articles on UK topics - maybe thats why you haven't seen them. Perhaps people should leave them alone? Secretlondon 04:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
7. Since this nomination couldn't attract enough votes to pass during its original term -- and since even I felt compelled to qualify [1] my Support for this user -- I'm switching to Oppose. This extension is ill-advised. Reasonable objections were raised, and Neutrality should improve those areas before renomination. Cribcage 17:03, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
8. As I don't think we should have extensions, and there clearly isn't consensus. I don't have an opinion on their behaviour as our paths haven't crossed - I don't edit on US topics. Secretlondon 04:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Please renominate yourself in a couple of months time, when you are more experienced. == The Anome 18:21, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Might make a good sysop, but I'm sick of seeing talk pages being blanked. I saw this user do that twice to Talk:Calvin and Hobbes. Talk pages are an important record to complement an article. Everyking 09:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

   I've pledged to stop it. The clear consensus says it's a wikietiquette violation, so I'll oblidge. Neutrality 06:23, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

3. Between the talk page blanking issue and Neutrality's statement in voting on Chocolateboy's nomination, I am concerned that this user is still learning the ropes and needs more time. I don't think edit wars are okay, and believe that sysops in particular should find better ways of handling disputes. Normally I don't vote neutral, but since Neutrality will probably become a good sysop with a little more experience, I hesitate to oppose outright. --Michael Snow 17:41, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. I'd be willing to consider you in a few months, but you need some more experience when it comes to blanking talk pages and also the edit war on FOX News (which is what I've seen only). Ilyanep (Talk) 01:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The first and only "edit war" I've ever gotten into. And I feel I handled it quite well under the circumstances; see my comments at History, VV's talk, and Fox News's talk. Neutrality 23:49, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Also, a preemptive response to the inquiries that will surely come: Yes, I have read the Administrators page and understand the rights and responsibilities that come with the office. I would probably patrol Recent Changes for vandals, as well as helping out at Vandalism in Progress and VfD. I’d also assist with editing the Main Page (grammatical errors drive me crazy, being the copy editor that I am.) Neutrality 04:46, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC)
• A few questions.

1. In your opinion, what article have you contributed the most succesfully and helpfully to?
2. In your opinion, what has your best contribution to the running and maintenance of Wikipedia been? (i.e., have you reverted a bad stretch of vandalism, done extensive work categorizing articles, helped mediate a dispute?)
3. Of your Wikipedia edits and experiences thus far, what is your biggest regret? What do you wish you'd done differently? Thanks. Snowspinner 03:17, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

• And a few answers:

1. Probably El Cid and Charles Graner.
2. I have categorized many Olympic-related articles. I also report vandalism wherever I find it. Occasionally I go to "Special pages: Short pages" and check implausibly short pages to make sure they haven't been blanked. If I find they have, I revert the article and report the vandal on Vandalism in Progress.
3. I wish I had the patience to use the edit summary box more.

Thanks for your questions. I hope this helps you :) Neutrality 03:38, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)