Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anglius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Anglius

Final (closed early) (0/34/3) ended 14:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (intended time 01:53 18, January, 2006 (UTC))

Anglius (talk · contribs) – Self-nomination. I am quite occupied the present week, but I would like to able to "delete" articles and revert editings quickly. I promise to behave properly and with scrutiny. I have always attempted to be polite to other 'users' and shall continue to do so. I shall also attempt remove vandalistic editings promtly. Albeit, I did not become a member very long ago, I was an 'editor' of this "encyclopaedia" prior to then. I know that I may have appeared to have been obnoxious or biased before, but I shall try to behave more tactly.Anglius 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I accept.

Ladies and gentlemen, I intend to begin to reply to your comments and accusations(as well as Deathphoenix and Zoe's questions) upon Saturday. I apologise for the inconvenience. Would it be possible to extend the duration of the nomination?--Anglius 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would say that 2 days will be enough time after your responses. If some people switch to support or neutral following your response, and it appears that other people have not noticed your reply, the nomination could be extended. r3m0t talk 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your reply, sir.--Anglius 21:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

  1. Has shown inability to respect other editors who have differing views by him and blatantly looks down on users he does not agree with. I also do not feel that he would be trustworthy not to let his biases effect his performance in administrative actions. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. This editor opposed my original request for adminship for the reason that I am a woman; he has never recanted or apologized for his position. While I would never oppose an editor merely for opposing my adminship, misogyny is not a trait to be favored in administrators. Wikipedia has many female editors and an admin who cannot fairly deal with them is a liability to the project. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. This editor has only 1184 edits. Normally, this would not be a problem, however looking at the way he treats other editors, particularly Kelly Martin and other editors, and the moral POV-pushing he seems to frequently engage in, I must vote Oppose. Lack of experience is also a large issue, considering most of his talk page is people getting annoyed at him for POV-pushing and general disrespect and disdain for the Wikipedia community. I particularly disagree with his discrimination against female editors and other indications that he will not use his admin-tools responsibly - as Kelly rightly pointed out, an administrator who cannot fairly deal with female editors, or any editors in general, is a liability to the project. Werdna648T/C\@ 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Not enough editing across the namespaces, very little user interaction, project work, and little to no category or template work, just don't think is familiar enough with all the areas yet. xaosflux Talk/CVU 03:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Not enough edits. Very pushy, and apparently will make a bad admin judging from above complains. Olorin28 03:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Kelly Martin and Werdna648 above. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:17Z
  8. Oppose. Not only lacking some experience, but sexism and discrimination of any sort cannot be allowed in a potential admin. -- Phædriel *whistle* 05:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Stereotyping users on gender or similar characteristic instantly destroys any suitability one may have had for becoming an administrator. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose until email enabled. --TheParanoidOne 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Too abrasive. --Carnildo 07:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Opposition to Kelly Martin's adminship some months ago is the most ridiculous I have ever seen. Not tolerant enough for an admin. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Piling on in response to users request for extension at Jimbo's talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Charges against editor (POV pushing and misogyny) are serious. Even in his request for extension, Gentlemen(and ladies),... And posting a Request for admin and being unprepared to answer questions? Poor form. Ifnord 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Absolutely not. I, for one, do appreciate the diversity Mr. Anglius brings to Wikipedia, but do not consider him to be fit for adminship for the reasons already mostly outlined above.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Strong Oppose per reasons stated by others above, user's talk page, and answers to questions. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Kelly --Duk 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Contributions are so-so, civility is somewhat lacking. --King of All the Franks 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose primarily due to lack of experience. Silensor 19:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. One of the easiest no-brainers in RFA history. I'm going to go as far as to say Never. No need to respond; my opinion will not change. Mike H. That's hot 20:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose not want to say "comhrá" to you - but if your nominator does not support you, I see little reason to. If you are chauvinistic, as Kelly Martin has said, you do not meet my personal admin. standards. Maybe if you addressed some of this, I'd rethink it - but as of now I will oppose. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 22:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose did not answer the questions. KI 21:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Not very active recently, Kelly Martins comment is concerning (to say the least), self nom then declaring a couple of hours later that they won't be around doesn't inspire confidence --pgk(talk) 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Blanket labelling the reasons to oppose as "accusations" does not reflect well on attitude. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose, even lack of questions aside. Politeness is often present but civility is wanting, as only a brief perusal of his interaction will reveal. Lord Bob 23:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose --NaconKantari 01:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose For reasons already stated. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose -- JamesTeterenko 06:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose as per above. Also, while a 70% edit summary is decent, I'd like to see you strive for a higher number (~85%+). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. "Oppose". "the wub" "?!" "RFR" - a "good" idea? 11:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per Kelly Martin --Admrboltz (T | C) 23:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose I don't like chauvanists DaGizzaChat (c) 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. All other things aside... < 1200 edits? You must be kidding! Matt Yeager 06:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose We don't need sexists to admin, tyvm. NSLE (T+C) 10:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Neutral

  1. Oppose considering this "user"'s "inappropriate" behaviour, I consider it "unreasonable" to support him. That includes attitudes to Kelly Martin and the request that Jimbo Wales (of all people!) extends this RfA. r3m0t talk
    Neutral until reponse is given - that's my interpretation of WP:AGF. :) r3m0t talk 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Is there anyway some can delist this now? --Jaranda wat's sup 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    I suspect many non-bureacrats would hesitate to remove the nomination in the face of User:Anglius's request both on this page and on Jimbo's talk page that the nomination be extended. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral, I dislike how he opposed in Keely Martin's RFA. --Terence Ong Talk 12:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

  • Edit summary usage: 70% for major edits and 99% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces. Mathbot 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • See Anglius's edit count with Interiot's tool.
  • Self-nomination for an RFA in a week when he is too busy to actually take part in it, doesn't strike me as very good judgement. Also, the questions haven't been answered. --TheParanoidOne 06:41, 11 January 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.

I shall revert vulgar or irrelevant editings when I am able to. I shall also attempt to 'delete' articles that are redundant or "unrepairably" undesirable and cope with 'vandals' (and to fulfill all other duties that administators are expected to perform).

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

One of them was probably Seven Champions of Christendom, for I was the author of and, I believe, predominate contributer to it.

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.

I have been falsely accused of being a "troll" before, but I believe that I responsed to the accusation properly. I was also accused of being anti-Semitic, but I apologised for having unwittingly allowed myself to be perceived as such. I shall respond respectfully and with tact.

The following are some optional questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --Deathphoenix 02:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

4. When would you use {{test1}}, and when would you use {{bv}}?
A.
5. What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of WP:3RR.)
A.
6. In your opinion, when would you speedy delete an article under CSD A7 (unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an AFD instead?
A.
7. How would you tell the difference between a sockpuppet and a new user?
A.
8. How would you use WP:NPOV when writing or editing a disputed article?
A.
  • I have a question for you. On your User page, you say, Anglius previously appeared 'under' many other 'names.'. What other 'names' have you appeared under? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have a few additional questions, and will appreciate it if you answer them:
    • Suppose that during an conflict situation, a number of users act uncivily towards one another on a talkpage, and you, as an admin, happen to wander onto the page. How will you resolve the situation?
    • How will you determine if an article is redundant or "unrepairably" undesirable?

--Fangz 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The above adminship 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.