Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A Link to the Past

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This nomination has been removed a few days early due to overwhelming opposition.
Acetic'Acid 23:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Link to the Past

FINAL (6/17/7) ended 23:55 October 9, 2005 (UTC)

A Link to the Past (talk · contribs) – A Link to the Past has been a great user since his first edit in December 2004, being very active in cleanup projects and other Wikipedia activities. 4720 edits for those with editcountitis, well distributed throughout namespaces. Would make a good admin. Ral315 WS 04:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
Mild lesbian acceptance - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Support

  1. As nominator, of course. Ral315 WS 04:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Extreme DeCSS support, of course! I have seen this user around a lot. — JIP | Talk 05:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Support CambridgeBayWeather 06:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. Support - A clever, diligent editor --Knucmo2 09:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. I've seen a lot of ALTTP. --Merovingian (t) (c) 10:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support - A Link to the Past is dedicated to improving the quality of the encyclopedia. A few people would do well to remember what our goal is here. Rob Church Talk 18:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    He doesn't need the admin mop to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    Really? I'd love to contest this claim that those who improve articles are not worthy of admin status. User:Nichalp/sg 15:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    Angr said that you don't have to be an admin to improve Wikipedia, while you claim he said that if you improve Wikipedia you can't be an admin. If we denote "is an admin" with A and "improves Wikipedia" with I, this means that Angr said ¬∀x: Ix → Ax, while you said ∀x: Ix → ¬Ax. Angr's statement can be further expressed as ∃x: Ix ∩ ¬Ax. Your statement can be expressed as ∀x: ¬Ix ∪ Ax. These are not the same thing, because if we assume there are at least two Wikipedians in this Wikipedia, ∃ statements are not the same thing as ∀ statements. In fact, the statements are directly contradictory, as Ix contradicts ¬Ix and ¬Ax contradicts Ax, so in your version of Angr's statement, there can't be anyone who improves Wikipedia but is not an admin, because all users must either not improve Wikipedia, or be admins, or both. So therefore you have interpreted Angr wrong. — JIP | Talk 18:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. --Boothy443 | comhrá 06:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Too few edit summaries. Oleg Alexandrov 06:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose The discussion on Talk:Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back really disturbes me. I believe that comments such as the one A man in black cites ([1]) and others on that page (such as [2] and [3]) is unacceptable for any wikipedian, let alone an administrator. And yes I realise that the discussion was frustrating, but an admin needs patience in boatloads, enough to be able to handle these things. However, from what else I have seen of A Link To The Past, he seems like a very good user, and I am willing to change my vote in a few months if this RfA fails (barring any similar incidents, naturally). gkhan 11:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. An excellent editor but a little too rash to be an admin at this point. Needs to have his edges dulled a bit. For example, this quote from August 25 regarding Adamwankenobi: I also see you're sixteen years old. That would explain it. Oh well, at least school will help keep you from burdening Wikipedia anymore. I'm trying to help Empire Strikes Back, and you put that shit back on. I have encouraged admins at the wikipedia channel to not take vandal shit from you, so I suggest you fix up your act, or your ass is going to be torn. Admittedly Adamwankenobi was a bad faith user, but admins must keep their cool. Regrettably I must oppose at this point. Sorry! Andre (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, per Andre. Needs to keep a cooler head. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Following some of these links, there's just no way. So, yeah, blow me. I don't want to change it, so what? Are you gonna have a fucking heart attack over it? This is just Wikipedia. Just two days ago. Marskell 15:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose: Lacks the patience and temperment to be an admin. --Durin 15:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, per above. →Journalist >>talk<< 15:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I'm sorry, ALTTP. Though he's generally a great editor and I'm always on his side in disputes, he's far too rash and prone to getting into heated arguments and revert wars (some of which have led to pages being protected). He's a great editor (I love the Wario and Lakitu articles)... but I don't think he would make a good admin, especially when dealing with frustrating users. Coffee 17:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, his recent outbursts of temper are just way to recent to be ignored. And for an 18 year old to mock a 16 year old for his youth, well, that's just the pot calling the kettle black. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose seems too angry to be an admin. I don't believe he'll make a good one I oppose. Private Butcher 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Needs to keep a cool head more. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  13. OpposeAn admin must be polite and calm at all times. -DDerby-(talk) 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per GregAsche. --WikiFanaticTalk Contribs 23:40, 6 October 2005 (CDT)
  15. Oppose excellent editor, tireless contributor, and all-around good bloke. However – darnit – needs to pay a lot more attention to being patient, civil, and avoiding personal attacks. Promising to clean up one's act is all very well, but I don't think anyone should be up for adminship just four days after swearing at another user? It's not enough to make good edits; an admin should be cool under fire. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per above. Type O Spud 20:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose too hot headed, from my experience. --InShaneee 22:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. I must admit to moderately heated disagreements with ALTTP recently over stub categories. Not strong enough to oppose, but I'm a little wary of supporting. Grutness...wha? 06:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. I'm a bit ambivalent, too, although the timing is unfortunate, as I'm currently engaged in a fairly heated debate with him. (If anything, his patience in that dispute is a point in his favor.) I have mixed feelings about his tendency to edit without edit summaries and his occasionally confrontational tone in talk pages and edit summaries (particularly when dealing with confrontations by other editors). If it weren't for that, I'd be inclined to support. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 06:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    Since it's not really fair to be this critical without examples, here's one. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. I must admit that I don't like the answer to question 1 below at all; if you're not ready to use Brainpower before deleting, blocking and especially closing AfD's or others.... I don't know what to say about this, but: are you taking the admin-stuff seriously at all? (and I don't mean to offend here, that's why I 'voted' neutral) Lectonar 10:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    And yes, I've seen that you meant it basically as a jest; I just don't feel thats easily recognisable Lectonar 10:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. I think that ALTTP is now making a good effort to be a more calm and civil editor, but I would like to see him demonstrate it over a few weeks at least. I appreciate his willingness to learn from this experience, and I look forward to supporting his next RfA. FreplySpang (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral Good Editor but troubled by comments maybe in a few months --JAranda | yeah 00:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  6. Neutral. There's already enough opposition so I'm not going to pile on, but I do think that taking the advice from this RfA would be beneficial. Carbonite | Talk 12:53, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Neutral I'd like to thank the candidate for answering my questions. Candidate is obviously a great editor, but like the opposition here I agree the candidate needs just a tad more time working out the personal part (which can be hard :-(). Its also obvious that the candidate is making a commendable attempt to get better at it too, which is good :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Comments

  • *grumble*I have several criticisms of this candidate. First off, the candidate floods peer review. Second, the answer to the first question makes me think twice. Third, a severe lack of edit summaries (in some cases). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 05:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Taking on your comments in order: Yes, I admit that perhaps it was rude of me to flood the Peer Review with articles, no matter how legitimate they were. I apologize, although the way you worded it makes it seem like I do it on a regular basis. c_c
    • That was just a jest, basically, anything that I can do without having an innate knowledge in, say, HTML or C++ I'll be able to do.
    • Yes, yes, I had a speech on that, and I do have a problem with edit summaries. However, the only time I really made no edit summaries was that one time recently where I was stub-sorting. I was trying to get it done as soon as humanly possible, so I just c/ped the stub to be applied and saved. I'll try my hardest to remember to keep writing edit summaries. Thanks for your comments. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the response! I apologize if I was a bit terse... OK, so I've got one last question for you (and please realize these are just to address my own concerns as I'm very much undecided). At least from what I've seen you tend to drift towards owning articles, as statements such as Talk:Star_Wars_Episode_V:_The_Empire_Strikes_Back#This_is_a_community_article. would indicate, and in general the disputes that follow. Am I incorrect? What do you think? Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't say owning, but I was being a pinch selfish with what I thought was quality. Although, the statements I made were in response to the additude that this is for Star Wars editors to edit. Also, Grutness, I don't quite recall conversing... @.@ - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Do the words "Video game company stubs" sound familiar? As I said, not nearly enough to oppose on, but it left me a little hesitant to support. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, I realize I was testy with Clawson, and I do apologize for any aggression towards him, but in my own defense, the guy was ignoring what I was saying completely, and being respectful was not working to get him to stop ignoring what I was saying (he was saying that change was needed, and was ignoring me because I did not want change, and was demanding that I give a different change opposed to his change). - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • On edit summaries: Overall usage of edit summaries for this nominee is 45%. Over the last 500 edits, it's 66%. Thus, nominee is improving. There's more room for improvement though. --Durin 15:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
            • And, people, stop apologizing for not wanting to give me power. o_o Oh well - I'll just clean up my temper in the next few months. Also, yes, it was in jest, but you're misinterpreting the statement; it was to mean that I do not have expertise stuff like HTML, and that I could do simpler stuff. I'll change it to a less sarcastic statement. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:27, 6 October 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. Well, I'd say anything simple, I don't have an expertise in HTML or anything, I can just help with various tasks on Wikipedia. (deleting, (un)blocking, closing, (un)protecting, etc.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. Wario, Henry Fonda, Cat, Lakitu and Katamari Damacy, five articles that I have helped feature. Wario is my biggest work, where I contributed more content than anyone (A Man in Black helped out a lot too, however).
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. Well, let's just say that in the past, I have let my temper get in the way of good judgement. Often, however, while i was at some fault for my temper being unleashed, there was fault in the receiver of my temper often, such as Adamwankenobi (who, after being blocked, returned and became a much better user). I plan on cleaning up my act, and promise to not abuse my power TOO much (if you didn't already get it, that statement was injest :). While I have a mean side if you look hard enough for it, I have a nice side - I rarely ever bite the newbies, and I strive to help improve the quality of Wikipedia. I have never been blocked, and I have never vandalized an article. I won't destroy you if you object, so don't worry. *waves*