Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bogdangiusca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

[edit] Bogdangiusca

final (36/4/5) ending 21:51 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bogdangiusca (talk · contribs) – I nominate Bogdan because he has contributed a large variety of articles on Romania-related topics, particularly in the fields of lingustics. He is also friendly, fair and displays the conduct of an administrator. Ronline ✉ 05:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept the nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdangiusca (talk • contribs)

Support

  1. Very Strong Support - I know Bogdangiusca and I trust him. His huge contributions proves a very decent, calm and friendly attitude. He is a man that won't make compromise to lies. He is by far the best of us and he was always our model. -- Bonaparte talk 08:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    Do you understand that a troll's recommendation may harm a nominee? --Ghirlandajo 09:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Very Strong Support - I thought he was already an admin. If not, that's strange. He's the best Romanian contributor on Wiki. --Anittas 15:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Very Strong Support - One of the few times I don't even have to wait to hear how the candidate answers the questions. Probably our single best contributor on Romanian-related topics, and a veritable role-model in terms of his behavior. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Very Strong Support - The candidate knows his domain of competency really well and is one of the Romanian contributors without a hidden agenda. Dunemaire 10:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Support, given that he accepts the nomination. --Node 03:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. Support Dpotop 19:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Strongest support possible - One of the best users around and by miiiiilllleeeeessss the best romanian user. --Mihai -talk 20:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    Let's not exagerate. --Anittas 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not and it's my opinion. Check this out: edit count. --Mihai -talk 20:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    I don't know how much you know about our editors, but Alexander has done some great work, too. Bogdan is not so great communicating with other members. Interaction with other members counts, too. Some of us have also done some good work. Sure, Bogdan might be the best, but not by miiiiilllleeeeessss. --Anittas 21:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yes Anittas. According to that tool I have more edits than you do :) Bonaparte talk 21:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    I'm sure that Node has more edits than both of us, yet... --Anittas 21:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    No, we have of course more than Node! Alexander is great too, and he's our buddy also. Bonaparte talk 21:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    Bogdan has done the most thus far for the Romania-related articles, and he's done his share for Wikipedia in general, but I agree with Anittas that Bogdan needs to work on his communication/interaction skills. Also, I almost don't want to bring this up because it may be seen as a low hit to a User I otherwise support, but his English often requires a steady level of copy-editing (grammar mistakes common). Sorry. I just had to bring this up, because some people are exaggerating Bogdan here. None of these points however are serious enough to warrant an oppose vote. Alexander 007 07:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Please understand that the number of edits doesn't imply whether a person is ready for adminship or not. I did more edits in 9 months than Bogdan did in 3 years. Some people make slight changes in grammar, or edit categories, or just revert - and have astonishing number of edits. We should concentrate on Bogdan's behaviour and interaction with other editors and not on the number of edits he has. I believe that any admin should participate actively in such comminity affairs as AfD, RfA, etc. I don't think that I've seen Bogdangiusca doing this kind of job recently. The more's the pity. --Ghirlandajo 09:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. Support --Jaranda wat's sup 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. Support He appears to be well-read.--Anglius
  10. Oran e (t) (c) (e-mail) 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  11. Support. I hope that this will not become the circus as in Ronline's nomination. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support, level-headed and non-partisan, the sysop tools will be in safe hands.--cjllw | TALK 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  13. Support, handles POV issues well, including in the links User:Matia.gr cites below. That said, please use edit summaries more, particularly for non-minor edits like this one. Chick Bowen 00:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support, HGB 01:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC).
  15. Merovingian 02:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  16. Support Has been here for long and has done some great work. deeptrivia (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support, very careful with NPOV and facts--Confuzion 03:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good bloke. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support. --Khoikhoi 03:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support. Alexander 007 06:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support. We can definitely use more level-headed admins. ナイトスタリオン ✉ 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  22. Support I see no reason to oppose.--MONGO 10:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  23. Support. I have only good experience with him. He will be probably the first Romanian admin here, come on! - Darwinek 13:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, there are more Romanian admins than the Russian and Polish taken together, although I daresay the coverage of Romanian topics here is not up to the level of either. We don't see Romanian admins at work that often, that's why many people doubt if they really exist. --Ghirlandajo 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  24. Support looks fine to me.Gator (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  25. Support, unlikely to abuse admin tools. Reasons presented for opposition raise concern about overall conduct, but not regarding administrative tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  26. Support. On pages where we met, he did a great job. --Luci S 07:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  27. Support Level headed editor. Will be a good admin --rogerd 17:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  28. Very Strong Support. I've met him a couple of times before, and I'm surprised to learn that he's not an admin, yet. Careful with sources and balanced in behaviour. --Lysy (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  29. Support seems good.  Grue  13:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  30. Support. the wub "?!" 00:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  31. affirmative Derex 21:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  32. Support. Bogdan is a great (and knowledgeable) user in a difficult area, and with basically the only oppose votes being from two nationalists and the new Boothy, I'm most definitely compelled to support. Ambi 03:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  33. Support. El_C 12:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  34. Support. -- DS1953 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  35. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 04:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  36. Upon reviewing Bogdan's contributions, I change my vote to weak support, although the fact that he is ardently supported by certain trollish creatures still nonplusses me. --Ghirlandajo 08:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose - I know that Bogdan has done many positive contribs in WP, however some of his comments on other users (and some times other countries) when he dealt with conflicts at Balkan topics force me to vote against his adminship at the present time. I may be wrong, but I cannot believe that he is ready to become an admin. If his adminship is accepted, I wish that he'll avoid such comments on the future, and I hope that he'll try to be as neutral as possible. If his RFA fails, and in the meantime his actions prove that those were isolated, and perhaps unfortunate, insidents, I'll vote supporting him, at his next RFA. +MATIA ☎ 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    What comments are you reffering to and how old are they? Have you witnessed any such comments in the recent time? --Anittas 00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, I know what you're talking about: about Template:Macedonian naming dispute. I didn't wanted that template simply because it was against our policies and it would had set a bad precedent. Anyway, the decision against it was eventually made by a community consensus, not only by me. bogdan 00:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Feel free to make your stand on this RfA. --Anittas 00:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Nope. Having an opinion is one thing. I was talking about FOPOG and Talk:Aromanians. As I said before what really matters is avoiding such "humour" and trying for neutrality in the future. +MATIA ☎ 00:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    I was not thinking anenst that when I 'voted' in his favour. Former Yugloslav Republic of Macedonia might sound ridiculous, but Former Ottoman Province of Greece does not sound excessively better. I do not desire to sound like a partisan of "political correctness," but we should attempt to be 'neutral,' if only as not to confuse people. Personally, I usually dislike that policy and may occasionally be tempted to write of things as I would like for them to be, but I suppose that that would inaccurate to do so 'here'. --Anglius 03:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    The difference between FOPOG and fYRoM is that fYRoM is an acronym used by UNO, IMF etc due to the name dispute with Greece (note: I'm a Greek editor, and I believe that the two governments must work it out). However I want to be an optimist for Bogdan and I know that he has done a lot of work at WP. +MATIA ☎ 12:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    I appreciate your explanation, "Matia." --Anglius 20:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Very Strong Oppose. The last thing we need are the nationalist admins, who keep from deletion and frantically defend such disgustingly offensive pieces of propaganda as Anti-Romanian discrimination. --Ghirlandajo 18:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Well that's your opinion Ghirlandajo. Do you deny or accept the Anti-Romanian, Anti-Semitism, Nazism forms?-- Bonaparte talk 18:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    I prefer not to feed trolls. --Ghirlandajo 18:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    It's not good to deny Anti-Romanian, Anti-Semitism. I let the other users to draw out the conclusions....-- Bonaparte talk 18:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    I don't know about anti-Romanian but I can firmly assert the Ghirlandajo is not an anti-Semite as I have seen many of his edits. As per this, I think he is unlikely an anti-anyone else. I further assert that "do not feed trolls" is a wise rule that he has stated. In no way this affects the my opinion of the personality of Bogdan or Bogdan's suitablity for Adminship, which I will likely support. --Irpen 19:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    That article was not written by me. When I found, it was unsourced and POV and I tried to fix it. Ghirlandajo argued that because it is POV, it should be deleted and I was against that, because lack of neutrality is not a valid deletion criterium. bogdan 20:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Ghirlandajo is known to be rabid in these situations, as seen in his dealings with Polish Wikipedians, etc., unless I'm mistaken. He's quick to call out "nationalist", but the term may equally apply to him. And his behavior toward Romanian Wikipedians is overall abrasive. Alexander 007 20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Please watch your tongue. You are the first to call me a nationalist, I believe, and I find it quite funny, as my nationalism consists in occasional changing "annexed" to "liberated", just to underline the POVishness of certain phrases. "My behavior toward Romanian Wikipedians" is limited to several contacts with the subject of this nomination, when he attempted to deny Khotin Massacre, which may be compared by some to the Holocaust Denial. I tend to keep aloof from Romania-related topics on purpose, because the level of discourse I've seen in the articles on Transnistria, Moldovan language, etc. is below criticism. We made Ronline an admin in the hope that he'll moderate the counterproductive discourse, but so far I have not seen any improvements. --Ghirlandajo 09:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    Readers, I direct you to:Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Workshop. Alexander 007 09:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    While AndriyK's behaviour was frequently disgusting and caused the whole community to rise against him, I find the edits of some Romanian editors even more disturbing. On looking through Bogdan's edits, I see him a more moderate editor, although not very active nowadays. I may change my vote against him after additional consideration, however. --Ghirlandajo 09:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    This is not Ghirlandajo's RfA to begin with. Besides, the comments above by Annitas and Bonaparte are obviously trollish and IMO totally undeserved. I am upset to see that trollism gets from articles and talk pages even to RfA. Let's close the issue. Ghirlandajo voted as he saw fit and he had a right to do so. Whoever has a thing or two to say about it, take it to his talk or go to an RfC or whatever. --Irpen 22:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Oh, look, the Russian doesn't like the truth. Yeah, too bad! --Anittas 21:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    Again ethnic slurs? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Anittas is not over. We have enough Romanian admins now, so hopefully one of them will be bold enough to moderate Anittas. --Ghirlandajo 10:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - Youch not doing any favours with missing the 4 tildes on your own nom, and making overly short answers there. Might be a good contributor, but needs a bit more skill with Wikipedia before getting up to admin status. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    After three years of wikiediting and some 15000+ edits, Bogdangiusca should have enough skill to perform admin duties. I can't see your point. --Ghirlandajo 21:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose, I am unfamiliar with this user but found the answers below rather unconvincing in their brevity. Radiant_>|< 12:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral - While adminship is no big deal, RfA is serious stuff. He should have signed the acceptance of nom using the four ~'s. --Gurubrahma 04:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Neutral I'm sorry, but your answers to the questions are FAR too short for me. Let me know, if you flesh them out a bit. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 10:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Neutral Don't know user very well, and certainly have no wish to become involved in nationalism disputes where I know nothing, but I agree that answers to questions are spare. Xoloz 19:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. Answers are too short to gain any perspective on the what the user will do if he becomes an admin. I know it's no big thing, but not signing his own comment left me with a sour taste in my mouth.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Neutral as well, in agreeance with other Neutral votes. I think what makes me leery in this case, and hesitant to vote Accept, is the lack of general goodwill I've seen from some voters so far in this vote. Becoming an admin requires a consensus, and I will not make a decision to join or oppose consensus if I have to wade through the muck in order to get there. Furthermore, I do not currently have any opinion on the issue of nationalism and I fail to see how it should apply here when we're trying to focus on the merits of the candidate. --Vortex 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Comments

  • I am glad that he accept it. He is a good man. We all trust him and his edits are strong. He is a very ambitious man. He knows what he's doing, and he's doing. "Il n'y a que de vivre; on voit tout et le contraire de tout". Bonaparte talk 20:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I sugesst that the vote of User: Ghirlandajo should not be taken into account. As long as a person will still deny Anti-Romanian or Anti-Semitism policies should not have the right to vote.-- Bonaparte talk 18:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The behaviour of User: Ghirlandajo is almost inacceptable. Look at his remarks on almost every vote! He cann't refrain himself of not being out of line. My advice is for him to refrain himself with this approach. Bonaparte talk 11:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Do you two think you could maybe get a room and lock yourselves away there? That way you'd have some privacy for your lovers' quarrel, and people wishing to genuinely comment yea or nay on Bogdan's RfA can do so without the distraction of User:Bonaparte and User:Ghirlandajo sniping at each other. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:52, 15 December 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 check out Category:Wikipedia backlog, and read the page about administrators and the administrators ' reading list.
A. I'll be reverting vandalism and do other clean-up tasks, such as moving pages according to naming policy and deleting nonsense pages.
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
A. I created some articles on the history and linguistics of the Balkans, including Balkan sprachbund, Origin of Romanians, Origin of Albanians, and some articles for some rather obscure topics such as on the town of Isaccea.
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, since I edited mostly on Balkans topics I had a few conflicts, but I always tried to stay cool and dig up more information and sources on the subject instead of simply quarreling.
The above 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 article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.