Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pavel Vozenilek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pavel Vozenilek

final (15/14/3) ending 04:22 May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Pavel is a tireless patroller of Wikipedia. A perusal of his edits shows that a large number of them are vandalism reverts, vandalism warnings, and WP:VIP reports. Such policing is very important to Wikipedia, and I feel that Pavel would be able to do so even more effectively if he had administrative powers to block repeat or malicious vandals if needed. Firebug 04:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Candidate please indicate acceptance of the nomination here

I accept. Pavel Vozenilek 12:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Support for reasons listed in nomination. Firebug 04:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Support. Yes, tireless with fighting vandals, in addition to making excellent contributions, will be a valuable admin. (and I guess I'm jumping the gun before he even accepts) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:39, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
3. Strongest possible support. I'm jumping the gun as well. Pavel tags and bags more copyvios and vandals than the freaking FBI. I would love to be there when he blocks the particularly egregious ones. - Lucky 6.9 04:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
4. Support, I see Pavel patrolling constantly, and he does great work. He will need to acknowledge that admins must follow due process in warning vandals several times before blocking, and must block for short periods (up to 24 hours) for first offences. I say this because he often asks for vandals to be blocked permanently, and that is not usually appropriate.-gadfium 04:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Support - his handling of vandalims is superb --tex^t_tonic 14:41, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
6. Nuclear wessels for everyb- oh, wait, wrong guy.  :/ --Merovingian (t) (c) 11:53, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
7. Support. Benefit of the doubt. Assume good faith. JuntungWu 14:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
8. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
9. Support. One of Wikipedia's best bouncers at restraining vandals. Zzyzx11 | Talk 18:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Support the policemen!--Jondel 00:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Support. Opposition appears to be coming from POV-pushers, several of whom I've run across myself. Mackensen (talk) 04:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
12. Support; has done excellent work versus vandals and POV-warriors. Antandrus 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
13. Support, has done some good work. -- Curps 07:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
14. Support, good editor, will make fine admin TDC 19:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
15. Support, based on above and below. Sam Spade 22:54, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose. Vozenilek casts his net way too wide for what he calls vandalism. While he does cite real vandals, he also accuses people of vandalism if they do not, say, agree on his assessment of Czech politics. Vozenilek already is abusing his authority as a user, I can imagine how it would be if he was an admin. Ruy Lopez 04:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   Can you link any examples of such cases? (MacGyverMagic, not signed in) 131.211.210.15 08:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   This is about Prague Spring ([1]). I'd reverted several edits of Ruy Lopez I found questionable and that were already subject of revert wars and listed him (possibly wrong) on VIP ([2]) as he looks involved only in edit wars. Pavel Vozenilek 12:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   But Pavel, you are asking to be entrusted with the ability to block vandals. If you are not totally sure about the definition in use here, I think you should consult the relevant policy before accepting another nomination. This will help you avoid contention when you are accepted as an admin.Grace Note 07:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Of course Pavel should be thanked for patrolling but his views on blocking are unacceptable. I strongly believe that we should not surrender our tolerance and warmth out of fear of vandalism. I'd definitely want to see more sign that Pavel can control the itch in his trigger finger. Grace Note 05:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Accused me of vandalism (actually listed me on VIP) because I removed a "pseudoprotected" template in an article where it was obviously misplaced as no one had voluntarily ceased editing. NoPuzzleStranger 10:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

   NoPuzzleStranger had modified several times template for Czech Republic stubs (e.g. [3]), causing wave of reverts on Czech articles and current protection of this template. There was also edit war on List of Czechs over name of the country (Czechia or Czech lands). After several reverts I asked participants to move it to the talk (didn't happen), after another reverts I put {{pseudoprotected}} on it, few more reverts later I complained on NoPuzzleStranger on VIP (he rewrote the complaint to my dislike [4]). More reverts had followed. It now moved into Talk page phase [5]. Pavel Vozenilek 12:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Concur with NoPuzzleStranger. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 15:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
5. Oppose. I've been watching Paul engage in a number of edit wars (e.g. [6], [7]) over the past few weeks. Both sides seem to be POV-warrioring and both sides have come close to (but not, as far as I can tell, violated) 3RR, and Paul has been characterizing as "vandalism" edits he merely disagrees with. I am concerned that Paul would misuse administrative authority to win these edit wars. I am also bothered by the fact that he will make the second revert without first attempting to communicate with the other editor via either article or user talk pages; clearly his communication skills are not up to administrative standards. Kelly Martin 16:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
6. Oppose. I don't like his views. He is not tolerant on Wikipedia. - Darwinek 18:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
7. Oppose, I have never encountered this editor but I don't like the complaints I read here. He's apparently one to paint vandalism with a broad brush and his comment of "I may help to stop vandals earlier as admin." does not sit well with me at all. To me, that means he's willing to take action against vandals and I don't like his definition of vandalism so I can't support the action to put him in a position to exercise an incorrect definition of vandalism. Cburnett 04:57, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

   I have also never encountered Pavel, and the complaints listed here creep me out a bit, but you shouldn't vote yes or no unless you actually know a bit about Pavel. What if the complaints are unreasonable? They sound reasonable, but so do many of the Supporters. I'm going to check out some of Pavel's work this weekend and vote, and I think you should too. Nabarry

8. Oppose, As a user that has used Wikipedia for some time without being registered, and now finally registering to add my articles additions to the site. I feel that it is beyond important to have unbiased admin. And as his history has shown, he has very strong personal biases. That he expresses in edit wars. Ender Wiggins 05:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
9. Oppose Not much direct experience of this user, but extremely concerned about the apparent over-readiness to label edits as vandalism. (Of course, by no means unique in this respect.) I think vandalism's clearly an issue on WP, but that argues for scrupulous adherence to an agreed definition, not for using the term over-liberally, esp. in the context of edit wars. Would be glad to support on a future occasion if such issues are resolved. Alai 01:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
10. Oppose. It didn't take much to convince me of Pavel's exceedingly quick vandal-accusation trigger: just his most recent posting at WP:VIP. His only comment to the editor is accusation of vandalism, after the editor made changes such as this, which for all I know might well be correct. Unless there is some other information I don't know of, this is clearly not assuming good faith. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
11. Oppose. Way too fast on accusations of vandalism; "asking for a block" after an IP hasn't received a single message in two months, Reporting a new anon making a mixed bag of good and misguided edits for vandalism, etc. Enthusiasm and dedication to the project is fantastic, but I can't see entrusting blocking power just yet; I'm very sorry. CDC (talk) 23:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
12. Oppose for now. Nothing personal, but from my limited observations of this user, he appears to lean a bit too heavily towards the deletionist position. I'll change my vote next time if I'm proved wrong. David Cannon 05:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
13. Oppose. Needs a few more months to mellow. Charles Matthews 09:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
14. agree with Charles. Johan Magnus 20:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I do assume good faith, but it is very important that admins know and respect the narrow definition of "vandalism" current on Wikipedia. You may edit-war if you must, but don't confuse edit-warring with vandal-fighting. I would recommend Pavel re-apply after a month or so of showing he knows and respects policy. Pov warriors with admin privileges are problematic, no matter how useful otherwise. I suggest as a golden rule, never block in anger (and when angry, let somebody else do the blocking). dab (ᛏ) 18:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
2. Haven't seen this user before. People I respect are on both sides of the question, so I'm neutral. PedanticallySpeaking 18:21, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
3. I remain neutral unless Pavel Vozenilek can sway me by answering my question under the comments section. Kingturtle 02:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Pavel Vozenilek currently has 3716 total edits: 2333/155 to articles/talk, 16/693 to User/talk, 406/2 to Wikipedia/talk, 105/2 to Image/talk, and 4 to Category. —Korath (Talk) 10:38, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Pavel Vozenilek, how do you respond to the points made by those who currently oppose your nomination? How do you explain your behavior? Would you change your behavior? Kingturtle 17:50, 30 Apr 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. I would continue as I do now. I may help to stop vandals earlier as admin. Having soap-box now: I would like to ask people to look on WP:VIP bit more, please - it is underutilized and it was even inaccessible in last few days (due to vandal filling it up to 600 kB of size).

2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

A. I usually work on articles related to Czech Republic and software development but most of my time gets sucked away by vandals. So no big polished article and nothing for front page. I plan to cover all cities in Czech Republic but this will take years with current pace.

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. Nothing long term as far as I remember. It is more result of being lazy and low on time than having saint-like personality. I got into few conflicts, though: political opinions (hello User:Ruy Lopez), silly edit war over name of Czech Republic (hi User:NoPuzzleStranger) or Time Cube stuff within GMT (hello Gene Ray). I did overshoot couple of times but I returned the previous state and apologized for these, AFAIK. Pavel Vozenilek