Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rei.09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] User:Rei (14/6/4) ends 07:31, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I am nominating Rei for adminship. Though we differ politically on a number of issues, I have seen her grow in skill and patience in dealing with difficult issues, good qualities in an admin. She has been here since August of last year and created or edited quite a number of arcane subjects before taking a break, and I think Wikipedia would benefit by encouraging her to take a broader role here. Cecropia 07:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I accept. I am especially glad to see Cecropia offer the nomination. Thank you, Cecropia. If accepted, I will try to do the position justice, and will read over the guidelines again thoroughly if accepted. As I was not expecting this nomination, I would only use admin powers upon request of other users in conflicts that I have not personally been involved in. If anyone has any questions or suggestions, please feel free to get in touch with me. --Rei

Support:

1. Cecropia 07:31, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
2. A solid contributor who has never allowed a contentious issue to afect her treatment of the article. Meelar 15:02, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
3. —No-One Jones 20:39, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
4. Graham :) | Talk 23:38, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
5. AndyL 07:24, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia is not an exclusive country club: adminship should be granted based on qualitative performance, not quantitative, IMHO. --"DICK" CHENEY 19:05, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
   • Note that several qualitative objections have been raised, below. Cribcage 06:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
7. pir 10:24, 3 May 2004 (UTC) Wholeheartedly support her nomination, Wikipedia and Wikipedians will benefit.
8. Changing my vote from neutral after discussion on Rei's talk page. I think she'll be fine. Isomorphic 23:59, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
9. After careful review, I support. Cribcage 03:10, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
10. Support. I have faith that the user can be trusted to refrain from using administrative powers in a controversy. - Fennec 13:04, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
11. Support. Mdchachi|Talk 13:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
12. Support. Cecropia and Rei should balance each other nicely. ;) Markalexander100 01:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
13. Fredrik 17:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
14. GrazingshipIV 09:29, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose:

1. I can not strongly enough express my opposition to Rei as an admin. TDC 20:01, May 1, 2004 (UTC)

   You're certainly not compelled to explain your vote -- but a remark like that leaves a question hanging in the air. If you chose to elaborate, people could judge whether they agree with your objection. Cribcage 05:43, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

   I believe that Rei will be prone to abuse her admin powers in articles she is personaly involved in Oil For Food, and that is why I oppose her nomination.TDC 16:23, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

   TDC, cam you show any particular example of misbehaviour by Rei? I can show several of yours, you are even listed as a vandal. Get-back-world-respect 20:29, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

   That means next to nothing, as anyone can list anyone as a vandal. In this instance it was done by the non-credible 172. -- VV 00:03, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

   172 is an admin and we provided evidence of vandalism. Get-back-world-respect 18:13, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

   Vandalism pertains to articles, not talk pages (appelative removed), if that were the case 172 would have been banned long long time ago. TDC 18:46, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

   As you know very well and as can be verified at your vandal listing you did not restrict your misbehaviour to talk pages. And at any rate, comments like "suck your own dick" and "only limp-dicked historians doubt my opinion" are unacceptable wherever you make them. You still failed to show any particular edit of Rei you regard as inappropriate. Get-back-world-respect 02:31, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

   Urg, the only reason I am listed in the vandal section is because you put me there (appelative removed). You are fabricating your own evidence. TDC 02:34, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

   I have removed personal attacks from this listing. You are not helping your cause. - Fennec 14:37, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

   I did not list TDC as a vandal, he was already listed. I only added evidence of his vandalism. And he still failed to show any particular edit of Rei he regards as inappropriate. Get-back-world-respect 22:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

2. Not yet enough edits, IMHO. Kingturtle 00:48, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
3. Respectfully oppose. I think that Rei is a well-intentioned user, but she's not ready for admin status. This should be of major concern. 1 Her edit summary here was, "Vote being taken on the talk page. Protecting until then." However, this would be more disconcerting had she been an admin to begin with, given that it was an attempt by her to prevent changes to an article on which she was actively editing. I also question her understanding of how an encyclopedia is supposed to be organized. She misunderstood my arguments here consistently on 2. 172 01:16, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

   As I mentioned on your talk page, I had at that point not read over the guidelines for page protection, which I did immediately after you commented, and I apologized to you. As for not understanding your arguments, I respectfully have to disagree. You decided to rearrange a page against the wishes of several users on the page, and reverted the very edits that were attempting to resolve your problems because you didn't look at what changes were made before reverts. If you would like to continue the discussion about the page, it is still open over there. --Rei

   I wasn't saying that the "page protection" was anything more than an honest mistake. I think that it can be read as a sign that perhaps more time is needed to learn the ropes. 172 21:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

4. I was reserving judgment until I saw how things played out during the ad hoc mediation/revision attempt at Oil for food, but after Rei's posting today on the talk page I have to oppose for similar reasons as 172. BCorr|Брайен 00:34, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

   Can you explain that? I am puzzled that she claims not to have seen the revision page but I cannot see anything wrong with what she wrote on talk. Get-back-world-respect 02:08, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

5. Respectfully oppose. Seeing as how there's no clear consensus, I read through Rei, TDC, and Cecrophia's edit history to try to get a sense of what's going on. I haven't encountered Rei before except seeing a brief edit of hers at the D9 cat page. Upon reviewing the edit history, I am concerned. While Rei has a number of excellent edits, the most valuable of which are on mushroom-related topics, most of her recent edits have been at politically charged current-events articles, such as Oil for food, George W. Bush, Israel, and various Iraq-related topics. These articles offer an editing experience that is quite outside the mainstream of Wikipedia. And since Rei has only been active since January 20 (plus a one-month period in August 2003 and a handful of edits in between), I question whether she has had the opportunity to internalize the Wikipedia "way of doing things." I would hope that she would be nominated again after she gains more experience with the project. UninvitedCompany 22:48, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

   Without Rei the Oil for food page would be the personal allegation page of vandal TDC. Get-back-world-respect 23:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

6. Maximus Rex 17:59, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Neutral:

• I would have opposed due to her behavior during Cecropia's nomination (when she and several others opposed Cecropia based only on his political views,) which is the only time I've come into contact with her. But since Cecropia is making the nomination, obviously he's comfortable with her, so I'll give my assent if not my support. Isomorphic 23:34, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

We did not oppose Cecropia because of his political views but because of his misbehaviour, shown by a specific example. I however have to admit that when doing this I had not really informed myself enough about what adminship means and to whom it should be granted. Get-back-world-respect

• • Discussion continues at /Cecropia_vs_Get-back-world-respect.

1. I think Rei will make a fine admin and hope she works on some non-controversial topics and is nominated again in a few weeks. +sj+ 09:16, 2004 May 7 (UTC)
2. VV 01:58, 3 May 2004 (UTC) I had difficulties with Rei earlier on, but our more recent interaction was more agreeable. That could be luck though; without more experience I can't say (as Cecropia does) whether Rei has gotten "more into the groove" of Wikipedia or not. So, not opposing or supporting at this juncture.
3. A few valid concerns have been raised. Guanaco 04:56, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
4. I think the instance 172 highlights is enough to make me wary. Whoever was in the right in that edit conflict, putting a page protection notice on an unprotected page that you are in the process of an edit war on is just bad form. I'd want to see some explanation/apology for that before I support. john 07:14, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

   She explained and apologized, see above. Get-back-world-respect 20:31, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

   Once again, I think that she's a well-meaning user, and that this was probably a benign confusion more than anything else. I just said that it's a sign that she may need more time to learn the ropes, that's all. 172 21:37, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

• If she promises to start using four tildes when signing her name I will switch my vote to support. It's so annoying when people don't date their talk entries. ;-) -- Mdchachi|Talk 21:02, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

  Ok, I will!  :) -- Rei 21:44, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

  I was just about to change my vote when I noticed that you let the Daily Mirror photos into the Iraq Human Rights article. That, to me, shows a serious lack of critical thinking. The source of the photos and the discrepancies within the photos themselves show that they are likely to be fake. Telling the truth is one thing but perpetrating hoaxes that may incite hatred and get people killed is another. :-( Mdchachi|Talk 21:51, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

  I supported the removal of the pictures. Check the history. I didn't do it myself, but I only saw the page one time during that time period, and since the pictures are still being disputed, I decided not to get involved at that point. My main concern was to provide a link (I don't think we should be directly putting in pictures that contain nudity, since the site should be safe for work) to the photos that are generally accepted as authentic. -- Rei 20:02, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

  I'm changing my vote since I promised; although my last concern still stands, I think that on balance Rei is likely to use admin power conscientiously. Mdchachi|Talk 13:35, 4 May 2004 (UTC)